Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
Recent genetic studies have identified variants associated with bipolar disorder (BD), but it remains unclear how brain gene expression is altered in BD and how genetic risk for BD may contribute to these alterations. Here, we obtained transcriptomes from subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala samples from post-mortem brains of individuals with BD and neurotypical controls, including 511 total samples from 295 unique donors. We examined differential gene expression between cases and controls and the transcriptional effects of BD-associated genetic variants. We found two coexpressed modules that were associated with transcriptional changes in BD: one enriched for immune and inflammatory genes and the other with genes related to the postsynaptic membrane. Over 50% of BD genome-wide significant loci contained significant expression quantitative trait loci (QTL) (eQTL), and these data converged on several individual genes, including SCN2A and GRIN2A. Thus, these data implicate specific genes and pathways that may contribute to the pathology of BP.
Gene Expression Markers for Bipolar Disorder Pinpointed
The work was led by researchers at Johns Hopkins’ Lieber Institute for Brain Development. The findings, published this week in Nature Neuroscience, represent the first time that researchers have been able to apply large-scale genetic research to brain samples from hundreds of patients with bipolar disorder (BD). They used 511 total samples from 295 unique donors.
“This is the first deep dive into the molecular biology of the brain in people who died with bipolar disorder—studying actual genes, not urine, blood or skin samples,” said Thomas Hyde of the Lieber Institute and a lead author of the paper. “If we can figure out the mechanisms behind BD, if we can figure out what’s wrong in the brain, then we can begin to develop new targeted treatments of what has long been a mysterious condition.”
Bipolar disorder is characterized by extreme mood swings, with episodes of mania alternating with episodes of depression. It usually emerges in people in their 20s and 30s and remains with them for life. This condition affects approximately 2.8% of the adult American population, or about 7 million people. Patients face higher rates of suicide, poorer quality of life, and lower productivity than the general population. Some estimates put the annual cost of the condition in the U.S. alone at $219.1 billion.
While drugs can be useful in treating BD, many patients find they have bothersome side effects, and for some patients, current medications don’t work at all.
In this study, researchers measured levels of messenger RNA in the brain samples. They observed almost eight times more differentially expressed gene features in the sACC versus the amygdala, suggesting that the sACC may play an especially prominent role—both in mood regulation in general and BD specifically.
In patients who died with BD, the researchers found abnormalities in two families of genes: one containing genes related to the synapse and the second related to immune and inflammatory function.
“There finally is a study using modern technology and our current understanding of genetics to uncover how the brain is doing,” Hyde said. “We know that BD tends to run in families, and there is strong evidence that there are inherited genetic abnormalities that put an individual at risk for bipolar disorder. Unlike diseases such as sickle-cell anemia, bipolar disorder does not result from a single genetic abnormality. Rather, most patients have inherited a group of variants spread across a number of genes.”
“Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive disorder, is a highly damaging and paradoxical condition,” said Daniel R. Weinberger, chief executive and director of the Lieber Institute and a co-author of the study. “It can make people very productive so they can lead countries and companies, but it can also hurl them into the meat grinder of dysfunction and depression. Patients with BD may live on two hours of sleep a night, saving the world with their abundance of energy, and then become so self-destructive that they spend their family’s fortune in a week and lose all friends as they spiral downward. Bipolar disorder also has some shared genetic links to other psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, and is implicated in overuse of drugs and alcohol.”
2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum, Mass General Brigham, Gene and Cell Therapy, VIRTUAL May 19–21, 2021
The 2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum will focus on the growing impact of gene and cell therapy. Senior healthcare leaders from all over look to shape and debate the area of gene and cell therapy. Our shared belief: no matter the magnitude of change, responsible healthcare is centered on a shared commitment to collaborative innovation–industry, academia, and practitioners working together to improve patients’ lives.
About the World Medical Innovation Forum
Mass General Brigham is pleased to present the World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) virtual event Wednesday, May 19 – Friday, May 21. This interactive web event features expert discussions of gene and cell therapy (GCT) and its potential to change the future of medicine through its disease-treating and potentially curative properties. The agenda features 150+ executive speakers from the healthcare industry, venture, startups, life sciences manufacturing, consumer health and the front lines of care, including many Harvard Medical School-affiliated researchers and clinicians. The annual in-person Forum will resume live in Boston in 2022. The World Medical Innovation Forum is presented by Mass General Brigham Innovation, the global business development unit supporting the research requirements of 7,200 Harvard Medical School faculty and research hospitals including Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women’s, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Spaulding Rehab and McLean Hospital. Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/@MGBInnovation
Accelerating the Future of Medicine with Gene and Cell Therapy What Comes Next
Co-Chairs identify the key themes of the Forum – set the stage for top GCT opportunities, challenges, and where the field might take medicine in the future. Moderator: Susan Hockfield, PhD
President Emerita and Professor of Neuroscience, MIT
Hope that CGT emerging, how the therapies work, neuro, muscular, ocular, genetic diseases of liver and of heart revolution for the industry 900 IND application 25 approvals Economic driver Skilled works, VC disease. Modality one time intervention, long duration of impart, reimbursement, ecosystem to be built around CGT
FDA works by indications and risks involved, Standards and expectations for streamlining manufacturing, understanding of process and products
payments over time payers and Innovators relations Moderator: Julian Harris, MD
Partner, Deerfield
Promise of CGT realized, what part?
FDA role and interaction in CGT
Manufacturing aspects which is critical Speaker: Dave Lennon, PhD
President, Novartis Gene Therapies
Hope that CGT emerging, how the therapies work, neuro, muscular, ocular, genetic diseases of liver and of heart revolution for the industry 900 IND application 25 approvals Economic driver Skilled works, VC disease. Modality one time intervention, long duration of impart, reimbursement, ecosystem to be built around CGT
FDA works by indications and risks involved, Standards and expectations for streamlining manufacturing, understanding of process and products
payments over time payers and Innovators relations
GCT development for rare diseases is driven by patient and patient-advocate communities. Understanding their needs and perspectives enables biomarker research, the development of value-driving clinical trial endpoints and successful clinical trials. Industry works with patient communities that help identify unmet needs and collaborate with researchers to conduct disease natural history studies that inform the development of biomarkers and trial endpoints. This panel includes patients who have received cutting-edge GCT therapy as well as caregivers and patient advocates. Moderator: Patricia Musolino, MD, PhD
Co-Director Pediatric Stroke and Cerebrovascular Program, MGH
Assistant Professor of Neurology, HMS
What is the Power of One – the impact that a patient can have on their own destiny by participating in Clinical Trials Contacting other participants in same trial can be beneficial Speakers: Jack Hogan
Parkinson patient Constraints by regulatory on participation in clinical trial advance stage is approved participation Patients to determine the level of risk they wish to take Information dissemination is critical Barbara Lavery
Chief Program Officer, ACGT Foundation
Advocacy agency beginning of work Global Genes educational content and out reach to access the information
Patient has the knowledge of the symptoms and recording all input needed for diagnosis by multiple clinicians Early application for CGTDan Tesler
Clinical Trial Patient, BWH/DFCC
Experimental Drug clinical trial patient participation in clinical trial is very important to advance the state of scienceSarah Beth Thomas, RN
Professional Development Manager, BWH
Outcome is unknown, hope for good, support with resources all advocacy groups,
Process at FDA generalize from 1st entry to rules more generalizable Speaker: Peter Marks, MD, PhD
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA
Last Spring it became clear that something will work a vaccine by June 2020 belief that enough candidates the challenge manufacture enough and scaling up FDA did not predicted the efficacy of mRNA vaccine vs other approaches expected to work
Recover Work load for the pandemic will wean & clear, Gene Therapies IND application remained flat in the face of the pandemic Rare diseases urgency remains Consensus with industry advisory to get input gene therapy Guidance T-Cell therapy vs Regulation best thinking CGT evolve speedily flexible gained by Guidance
Immune modulators, Immunotherapy Genome editing can make use of viral vectors future technologies nanoparticles and liposome encapsulation
big pharma has portfolios of therapeutics not one drug across Tx areas: cell, gene iodine therapy
collective learning infrastructure features manufacturing at scale early in development Acquisitions strategy for growth # applications for scaling Rick Modi
CEO, Affinia Therapeutics
Copy, paste EDIT from product A to B novel vectors leverage knowledge varient of vector, coder optimization choice of indication is critical exploration on larger populations Speed to R&D and Speed to better gene construct get to clinic with better design vs ASAP
Data sharing clinical experience with vectors strategies patients selection, vector selection, mitigation, patient type specific Louise Rodino-Klapac, PhD
AAV based platform 15 years in development same disease indication vs more than one indication stereotype, analytics as hurdle 1st was 10 years 2nd was 3 years
Safety to clinic vs speed to clinic, difference of vectors to trust
Recent AAV gene therapy product approvals have catalyzed the field. This new class of therapies has shown the potential to bring transformative benefit to patients. With dozens of AAV treatments in clinical studies, all eyes are on the field to gauge its disruptive impact.
The panel assesses the largest challenges of the first two products, the lessons learned for the broader CGT field, and the extent to which they serve as a precedent to broaden the AAV modality.
Is AAV gene therapy restricted to genetically defined disorders, or will it be able to address common diseases in the near term?
Lessons learned from these first-in-class approvals.
Challenges to broaden this modality to similar indications.
Reflections on safety signals in the clinical studies?
Tissue types additional administrations, tech and science, address additional diseases, more science for photoreceptors a different tissue type underlying pathology novelties in last 10 years
Laxterna success to be replicated platform, paradigms measurement visual improved
More science is needed to continue develop vectors reduce toxicity,
AAV can deliver different cargos reduce adverse events improve vectorsRon Philip
Chief Operating Officer, Spark Therapeutics
The first retinal gene therapy, voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (Luxturna, Spark Therapeutics), was approved by the FDA in 2017.Meredith Schultz, MD
Executive Medical Director, Lead TME, Novartis Gene Therapies
Impact of cell therapy beyond muscular dystrophy, translational medicine, each indication, each disease, each group of patients build platform unlock the promise
Monitoring for Safety signals real world evidence remote markers, home visits, clinical trial made safer, better communication of information
AAV a complex driver in Pharmacology durable, vector of choice, administer in vitro, gene editing tissue specificity, pharmacokinetics side effects and adverse events manufacturability site variation diversify portfolios,
This panel will address the advances in the area of AAV gene therapy delivery looking out the next five years. Questions that loom large are: How can biodistribution of AAV be improved? What solutions are in the wings to address immunogenicity of AAV? Will patients be able to receive systemic redosing of AAV-based gene therapies in the future? What technical advances are there for payload size? Will the cost of manufacturing ever become affordable for ultra-rare conditions? Will non-viral delivery completely supplant viral delivery within the next five years?What are the safety concerns and how will they be addressed? Moderators: Xandra Breakefield, PhD
Ataxia requires therapy targeting multiple organ with one therapy, brain, spinal cord, heart several IND, clinical trials in 2022Mathew 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
Continue to explore large animal guinea pig not the mice, not primates (ethical issues) for understanding immunogenicity and immune response Manny Simons, PhD
CEO, Akouos
AAV Therapy for the fluid of the inner ear, CGT for the ear vector accessible to surgeons translational work on the inner ear for gene therapy right animal model
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
The GCT M&A market is booming – many large pharmas have made at least one significant acquisition. How should we view the current GCT M&A market? What is its impact of the current M&A market on technology development? Are these M&A trends new are just another cycle? Has pharma strategy shifted and, if so, what does it mean for GCT companies? What does it mean for patients? What are the long-term prospects – can valuations hold up? Moderator: 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? Speakers:
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
Scalability and manufacturing regulatory conversations, clinical programs safety in parallel to planning getting drug to patients
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 Challenges: disease heterogeneity cases of 10 years late in diagnosis. Clinical Trials for ALS in Gene Therapy targeting ASO1 protein therapies FUS gene struck youngsters
Cell therapy for ACTA2 Vasculopathy in the brain and control the BP and stroke – smooth muscle intima proliferation. Viral vector deliver aiming to change platform to non-viral delivery rare disease , gene editing, other mutations of ACTA2 gene target other pathway for atherosclerosis
Oncolytic viruses represent a powerful new technology, but so far an FDA-approved oncolytic (Imlygic) has only occurred in one area – melanoma and that what is in 2015. This panel involves some of the protagonists of this early success story. They will explore why and how Imlygic became approved and its path to commercialization. Yet, no other cancer indications exist for Imlygic, unlike the expansion of FDA-approved indication for immune checkpoint inhibitors to multiple cancers. Why? Is there a limitation to what and which cancers can target? Is the mode of administration a problem?
No other oncolytic virus therapy has been approved since 2015. Where will the next success story come from and why? Will these therapies only be beneficial for skin cancers or other easily accessible cancers based on intratumoral delivery?
The panel will examine whether the preclinical models that have been developed for other cancer treatment modalities will be useful for oncolytic viruses. It will also assess the extent pre-clinical development challenges have slowed the development of OVs. Moderator: 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? Speakers: Robert Coffin, PhD
Chief Research & Development 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
do not belief in systemic therapy achieve maximum immune response possible from a tumor by localized injection Roger Perlmutter, MD, PhD
Chairman, Merck & Co.
response rates systemic therapy like PD1, Keytruda, OPTIVA well tolerated combination of Oncolytic with systemic
Physician, Dana Farber-Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center
Assistant Professor of Medicine, HMS
Which person gets oncolytics virus if patient has immune suppression due to other indications
Safety of oncolytic virus greater than Systemic treatment
series biopsies for injected and non injected tissue and compare Suspect of hot tumor and cold tumors likely to have sme response to agent unknown all potential
There are currently two oncolytic virus products on the market, one in the USA and one in China. As of late 2020, there were 86 clinical trials 60 of which were in phase I with just 2 in Phase III the rest in Phase I/II or Phase II. Although global sales of OVs are still in the ramp-up phase, some projections forecast OVs will be a $700 million market by 2026. This panel will address some of the major questions in this area:
What regulatory challenges will keep OVs from realizing their potential? Despite the promise of OVs for treating cancer only one has been approved in the US. Why has this been the case? Reasons such have viral tropism, viral species selection and delivery challenges have all been cited. However, these are also true of other modalities. Why then have oncolytic virus approaches not advanced faster and what are the primary challenges to be overcome?
Will these need to be combined with other agents to realize their full efficacy and how will that impact the market?
Why are these companies pursuing OVs while several others are taking a pass?
In 2020 there were a total of 60 phase I trials for Oncolytic Viruses. There are now dozens of companies pursuing some aspect of OV technology. This panel will address:
How are small companies equipped to address the challenges of developing OV therapies better than large pharma or biotech?
Will the success of COVID vaccines based on Adenovirus help the regulatory environment for small companies developing OV products in Europe and the USA?
Is there a place for non-viral delivery and other immunotherapy companies to engage in the OV space? Would they bring any real advantages?
Systemic delivery Oncolytic Virus IV delivery woman in remission
Collaboration with Regeneron
Data collection: Imageable reporter secretable reporter, gene expression
Field is intense systemic oncolytic delivery is exciting in mice and in human, response rates are encouraging combination immune stimulant, check inhibitors
Few areas of potential cancer therapy have had the attention and excitement of CAR-T. This panel of leading executives, developers, and clinician-scientists will explore the current state of CAR-T and its future prospects. Among the questions to be addressed are:
Is CAR-T still an industry priority – i.e. are new investments being made by large companies? Are new companies being financed? What are the trends?
What have we learned from first-generation products, what can we expect from CAR-T going forward in novel targets, combinations, armored CAR’s and allogeneic treatment adoption?
Early trials showed remarkable overall survival and progression-free survival. What has been observed regarding how enduring these responses are?
Most of the approvals to date have targeted CD19, and most recently BCMA. What are the most common forms of relapses that have been observed?
Is there a consensus about what comes after these CD19 and BCMA trials as to additional targets in liquid tumors? How have dual-targeted approaches fared?
The potential application of CAR-T in solid tumors will be a game-changer if it occurs. The panel explores the prospects of solid tumor success and what the barriers have been. Questions include:
How would industry and investor strategy for CAR-T and solid tumors be characterized? Has it changed in the last couple of years?
Does the lack of tumor antigen specificity in solid tumors mean that lessons from liquid tumor CAR-T constructs will not translate well and we have to start over?
Whether due to antigen heterogeneity, a hostile tumor micro-environment, or other factors are some specific solid tumors more attractive opportunities than others for CAR-T therapy development?
Given the many challenges that CAR-T faces in solid tumors, does the use of combination therapies from the start, for example, to mitigate TME effects, offer a more compelling opportunity.
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 Knut Niss, PhD
CTO, Mustang Bio
tumor hot start in 12 month clinical trial solid tumors , theraties not ready yet. Combination therapy will be an experimental treatment long journey checkpoint inhibitors to be used in combination maintenance Lipid tumor 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
Where we might go: safety autologous and allogeneic Jay Short, PhD
Chairman, CEO, Cofounder, BioAlta, Inc.
Tumor type is not enough for development of therapeutics other organs are involved in the periphery
difficult to penetrate solid tumors biologics activated in the tumor only, positive changes surrounding all charges, water molecules inside the tissue acidic environment target the cells inside the tumor and not outside
The modes of GCT manufacturing have the potential of fundamentally reordering long-established roles and pathways. While complexity goes up the distance from discovery to deployment shrinks. With the likelihood of a total market for cell therapies to be over $48 billion by 2027, groups of products are emerging. Stem cell therapies are projected to be $28 billion by 2027 and non-stem cell therapies such as CAR-T are projected be $20 billion by 2027. The manufacturing challenges for these two large buckets are very different. Within the CAR-T realm there are diverging trends of autologous and allogeneic therapies and the demands on manufacturing infrastructure are very different. Questions for the panelists are:
Help us all understand the different manufacturing challenges for cell therapies. What are the trade-offs among storage cost, batch size, line changes in terms of production cost and what is the current state of scaling naïve and stem cell therapy treatment vs engineered cell therapies?
For cell and gene therapy what is the cost of Quality Assurance/Quality Control vs. production and how do you think this will trend over time based on your perspective on learning curves today?
Will point of care production become a reality? How will that change product development strategy for pharma and venture investors? What would be the regulatory implications for such products?
How close are allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies? If successful what are the market implications of allogenic CAR-T? What are the cost implications and rewards for developing allogeneic cell therapy treatments?
Global Head of Product Development, Gene & Cell Therapy, Catalent
2/3 autologous 1/3 allogeneic CAR-T high doses and high populations scale up is not done today quality maintain required the timing logistics issues centralized vs decentralized allogeneic are health donors innovations in cell types in use improvements in manufacturing
China embraced gene and cell therapies early. The first China gene therapy clinical trial was in 1991. China approved the world’s first gene therapy product in 2003—Gendicine—an oncolytic adenovirus for the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer. Driven by broad national strategy, China has become a hotbed of GCT development, ranking second in the world with more than 1,000 clinical trials either conducted or underway and thousands of related patents. It has a booming GCT biotech sector, led by more than 45 local companies with growing IND pipelines.
In late 1990, a T cell-based immunotherapy, cytokine-induced killer (CIK) therapy became a popular modality in the clinic in China for tumor treatment. In early 2010, Chinese researchers started to carry out domestic CAR T trials inspired by several important reports suggested the great antitumor function of CAR T cells. Now, China became the country with the most registered CAR T trials, CAR T therapy is flourishing in China.
The Chinese GCT ecosystem has increasingly rich local innovation and growing complement of development and investment partnerships – and also many subtleties.
This panel, consisting of leaders from the China GCT corporate, investor, research and entrepreneurial communities, will consider strategic questions on the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry in China, areas of greatest strength, evolving regulatory framework, early successes and products expected to reach the US and world market. Moderator: Min Wu, PhD
Managing Director, Fosun Health Fund
What are the area of CGT in China, regulatory similar to the US Speakers: 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 delayPin Wang, PhD
CSO, Jiangsu Simcere Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Similar starting point in CGT as the rest of the World unlike a later starting point in other biologicalRichard Wang, PhD
CEO, Fosun Kite Biotechnology Co., Ltd
Possibilities to be creative and capitalize the new technologies for innovating drug
Support of the ecosystem by funding new companie allowing the industry to be developed in China
Autologous in patients differences cost challengeTian Xu, PhD
Vice President, Westlake University
ICH committee and Chinese FDA -r regulation similar to the US
Difference is the population recruitment, in China patients are active participants in skin disease
Active in development of transposome
Development of non-viral methods, CRISPR still in D and transposome
In China price of drugs regulatory are sensitive Shunfei Yan, PhD
The COVID vaccine race has propelled mRNA to the forefront of biomedicine. Long considered as a compelling modality for therapeutic gene transfer, the technology may have found its most impactful application as a vaccine platform. Given the transformative industrialization, the massive human experience, and the fast development that has taken place in this industry, where is the horizon? Does the success of the vaccine application, benefit or limit its use as a therapeutic for CGT?
How will the COVID success impact the rest of the industry both in therapeutic and prophylactic vaccines and broader mRNA lessons?
How will the COVID success impact the rest of the industry both on therapeutic and prophylactic vaccines and broader mRNA lessons?
Beyond from speed of development, what aspects make mRNA so well suited as a vaccine platform?
Will cost-of-goods be reduced as the industry matures?
How does mRNA technology seek to compete with AAV and other gene therapy approaches?
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
How many mRNA can be put in one vaccine: Dose and tolerance to achieve efficacy
45 days for Personalized cancer vaccine one per patient
Hemophilia has been and remains a hallmark indication for the CGT. Given its well-defined biology, larger market, and limited need for gene transfer to provide therapeutic benefit, it has been at the forefront of clinical development for years, however, product approval remains elusive. What are the main hurdles to this success? Contrary to many indications that CGT pursues no therapeutic options are available to patients, hemophiliacs have an increasing number of highly efficacious treatment options. How does the competitive landscape impact this field differently than other CGT fields? With many different players pursuing a gene therapy option for hemophilia, what are the main differentiators? Gene therapy for hemophilia seems compelling for low and middle-income countries, given the cost of currently available treatments; does your company see opportunities in this market? Moderator: Nancy Berliner, MD
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
Potency and quality less quantity drug and greater potency
risk of delivery unwanted DNA, capsules are critical
analytics is critical regulator involvement in potency definition
Director, Center for Rare Neurological Diseases, MGH
Associate Professor, Neurology, HMS
Single gene disorder NGS enable diagnosis, DIagnosis to Treatment How to know whar cell to target, make it available and scale up Address gap: missing components Biomarkers to cell types lipid chemistry cell animal biology
crosswalk from bone marrow matter
New gene discovered that causes neurodevelopment of stagnant genes Examining new Biology cell type specific biomarkers
The American Diabetes Association estimates 30 million Americans have diabetes and 1.5 million are diagnosed annually. GCT offers the prospect of long-sought treatment for this enormous cohort and their chronic requirements. The complexity of the disease and its management constitute a grand challenge and highlight both the potential of GCT and its current limitations.
Islet transplantation for type 1 diabetes has been attempted for decades. Problems like loss of transplanted islet cells due to autoimmunity and graft site factors have been difficult to address. Is there anything different on the horizon for gene and cell therapies to help this be successful?
How is the durability of response for gene or cell therapies for diabetes being addressed? For example, what would the profile of an acceptable (vs. optimal) cell therapy look like?
Advanced made, Patient of Type 1 Outer and Inner compartments of spheres (not capsule) no immune suppression continuous secretion of enzyme Insulin independence without immune suppression
Volume to have of-the-shelf inventory oxegenation in location lymphatic and vascularization conrol the whole process modular platform learning from others
Keep eyes open, waiting the Pandemic to end and enable working back on all the indications
Portfolio of MET, Mimi Emerging Therapies
Learning from the Pandemic – operationalize the practice science, R&D leaders, new collaboratives at NIH, FDA, Novartis
Pursue programs that will yield growth, tropic diseases with Gates Foundation, Rising Tide pods for access CGT within Novartis Partnership with UPenn in Cell Therapy
Cost to access to IP from Academia to a Biotech CRISPR accessing few translations to Clinic
Protein degradation organization constraint valuation by parties in a partnership
Novartis: nuclear protein lipid nuclear particles, tamplate for Biotech to collaborate
Game changing: 10% of the Portfolio, New frontiers human genetics in Ophthalmology, CAR-T, CRISPR, Gene Therapy Neurological and payloads of different matter
The Voice of Dr. Seidman – Her abstract is cited below
The ultimate opportunity presented by discovering the genetic basis of human disease is accurate prediction and disease prevention. To enable this achievement, genetic insights must enable the identification of at-risk
individuals prior to end-stage disease manifestations and strategies that delay or prevent clinical expression. Genetic cardiomyopathies provide a paradigm for fulfilling these opportunities. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is characterized by left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction with normal or enhanced systolic performance and a unique histopathology: myocyte hypertrophy, disarray and fibrosis. Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) exhibits enlarged ventricular volumes with depressed systolic performance and nonspecific histopathology. Both HCM and DCM are prevalent clinical conditions that increase risk for arrhythmias, sudden death, and heart failure. Today treatments for HCM and DCM focus on symptoms, but none prevent disease progression. Human molecular genetic studies demonstrated that these pathologies often result from dominant mutations in genes that encode protein components of the sarcomere, the contractile unit in striated muscles. These data combined with the emergence of molecular strategies to specifically modulate gene expression provide unparalleled opportunities to silence or correct mutant genes and to boost healthy gene expression in patients with genetic HCM and DCM. Many challenges remain, but the active and vital efforts of physicians, researchers, and patients are poised to ensure success.
Cyprus Island, kidney disease by mutation causing MUC1 accumulation and death BRD4780 molecule that will clear the misfolding proteins from the kidney organoids: pleuripotent stem cells small molecule developed for applications in the other cell types in brain, eye, gene mutation build mechnism for therapy clinical models transition from Academia to biotech
One of the most innovative segments in all of healthcare is the development of GCT driven therapies for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Driven by a series of insights and tools and funded in part by disease focused foundations, philanthropists and abundant venture funding disease after disease is yielding to new GCT technology. These often become platforms to address more prevalent diseases. The goal of making these breakthroughs routine and affordable is challenged by a range of issues including clinical trial design and pricing.
What is driving the interest in rare diseases?
What are the biggest barriers to making breakthroughs ‘routine and affordable?’
What is the role of retrospective and prospective natural history studies in rare disease? When does the expected value of retrospective disease history studies justify the cost?
Related to the first question, what is the FDA expecting as far as controls in clinical trials for rare diseases? How does this impact the collection of natural history data?
The power of GCT to cure disease has the prospect of profoundly improving the lives of patients who respond. Planning for a disruption of this magnitude is complex and challenging as it will change care across the spectrum. Leading chief executives shares perspectives on how the industry will change and how this change should be anticipated. Moderator: Meg Tirrell
Senior Health and Science Reporter, CNBC
CGT becoming staple therapy what are the disruptors emerging Speakers: Lisa Dechamps
SVP & Chief Business Officer, Novartis Gene Therapies
Reimagine medicine with collaboration at MGH, MDM condition in children
The Science is there, sustainable processes and systems impact is transformational
Value based pricing, risk sharing Payers and Pharma for one time therapy with life span effect
Head, Pharmaceuticals Research & Development, Bayer AG
CGT – 2016 and in 2020 new leadership and capability
Disease Biology and therapeutics
Regenerative Medicine: CGT vs repair building pipeline in ophthalmology and cardiovascular
During Pandemic: Deliver Medicines like Moderna, Pfizer – collaborations between competitors with Government Bayer entered into Vaccines in 5 days, all processes had to change access innovations developed over decades for medical solutions
GCT represents a large and growing market for novel therapeutics that has several segments. These include Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Neurological Diseases, Infectious Disease, Ophthalmology, Benign Blood Disorders, and many others; Manufacturing and Supply Chain including CDMO’s and CMO’s; Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Tools and Platforms (viral vectors, nano delivery, gene editing, etc.). Bayer’s pharma business participates in virtually all of these segments. How does a Company like Bayer approach the development of a portfolio in a space as large and as diverse as this one? How does Bayer approach the support of the production infrastructure with unique demands and significant differences from its historical requirements? Moderator:
EVP, Pharmaceuticals, Head of Cell & Gene Therapy, Bayer AG
CGT will bring treatment to cure, delivery of therapies
Be a Leader repair, regenerate, cure
Technology and Science for CGT – building a portfolio vs single asset decision criteria development of IP market access patients access acceleration of new products
Bayer strategy: build platform for use by four domains
Gener augmentation
Autologeneic therapy, analytics
Gene editing
Oncology Cell therapy tumor treatment: What kind of cells – the jury is out
Of 23 product launch at Bayer no prediction is possible some high some lows
Gene delivery uses physical, chemical, or viral means to introduce genetic material into cells. As more genetically modified therapies move closer to the market, challenges involving safety, efficacy, and manufacturing have emerged. Optimizing lipidic and polymer nanoparticles and exosomal delivery is a short-term priority. This panel will examine how the short-term and long-term challenges are being tackled particularly for non-viral delivery modalities. Moderator: Natalie Artzi, PhD
Gene editing was recognized by the Nobel Committee as “one of gene technology’s sharpest tools, having a revolutionary impact on life sciences.” Introduced in 2011, gene editing is used to modify DNA. It has applications across almost all categories of disease and is also being used in agriculture and public health.
Today’s panel is made up of pioneers who represent foundational aspects of gene editing. They will discuss the movement of the technology into the therapeutic mainstream.
Successes in gene editing – lessons learned from late-stage assets (sickle cell, ophthalmology)
When to use what editing tool – pros and cons of traditional gene-editing v. base editing. Is prime editing the future? Specific use cases for epigenetic editing.
When we reach widespread clinical use – role of off-target editing – is the risk real? How will we mitigate? How practical is patient-specific off-target evaluation?
There are several dozen companies working to develop gene or cell therapies for Sickle Cell Disease, Beta Thalassemia, and Fanconi Anemia. In some cases, there are enzyme replacement therapies that are deemed effective and safe. In other cases, the disease is only managed at best. This panel will address a number of questions that are particular to this class of genetic diseases:
What are the pros and cons of various strategies for treatment? There are AAV-based editing, non-viral delivery even oligonucleotide recruitment of endogenous editing/repair mechanisms. Which approaches are most appropriate for which disease?
How can companies increase the speed of recruitment for clinical trials when other treatments are available? What is the best approach to educate patients on a novel therapeutic?
How do we best address ethnic and socio-economic diversity to be more representative of the target patient population?
How long do we have to follow up with the patients from the scientific, patient’s community, and payer points of view? What are the current FDA and EMA guidelines for long-term follow-up?
Where are we with regards to surrogate endpoints and their application to clinically meaningful endpoints?
What are the emerging ethical dilemmas in pediatric gene therapy research? Are there challenges with informed consent and pediatric assent for trial participation?
Are there differences in reimbursement policies for these different blood disorders? Clearly durability of response is a big factor. Are there other considerations?
Oligonucleotide drugs have recently come into their own with approvals from companies such as Biogen, Alnylam, Novartis and others. This panel will address several questions:
How important is the delivery challenge for oligonucleotides? Are technological advancements emerging that will improve the delivery of oligonucleotides to the CNS or skeletal muscle after systemic administration?
Will oligonucleotides improve as a class that will make them even more effective? Are further advancements in backbone chemistry anticipated, for example.
Will oligonucleotide based therapies blaze trails for follow-on gene therapy products?
Are small molecules a threat to oligonucleotide-based therapies?
Beyond exon skipping and knock-down mechanisms, what other roles will oligonucleotide-based therapies take mechanistically — can genes be activating oligonucleotides? Is there a place for multiple mechanism oligonucleotide medicines?
Are there any advantages of RNAi-based oligonucleotides over ASOs, and if so for what use?
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
Computer connection to the iCloud of WordPress.com FROZE completely at 10:30AM EST and no file update was possible. COVERAGE OF MAY 21, 2021 IS RECORDED BELOW FOLLOWING THE AGENDA BY COPY AN DPASTE OF ALL THE TWEETS I PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021 8:30 AM – 8:55 AM
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.Christine Seidman, MD
Cyprus Island, kidney disease by mutation causing MUC1 accumulation and death BRD4780 molecule that will clear the misfolding proteins from the kidney organoids: pleuripotent stem cells small molecule developed for applications in the other cell types in brain, eye, gene mutation build mechnism for therapy clinical models transition from Academia to biotech
One of the most innovative segments in all of healthcare is the development of GCT driven therapies for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Driven by a series of insights and tools and funded in part by disease focused foundations, philanthropists and abundant venture funding disease after disease is yielding to new GCT technology. These often become platforms to address more prevalent diseases. The goal of making these breakthroughs routine and affordable is challenged by a range of issues including clinical trial design and pricing.
What is driving the interest in rare diseases?
What are the biggest barriers to making breakthroughs ‘routine and affordable?’
What is the role of retrospective and prospective natural history studies in rare disease? When does the expected value of retrospective disease history studies justify the cost?
Related to the first question, what is the FDA expecting as far as controls in clinical trials for rare diseases? How does this impact the collection of natural history data?
The power of GCT to cure disease has the prospect of profoundly improving the lives of patients who respond. Planning for a disruption of this magnitude is complex and challenging as it will change care across the spectrum. Leading chief executives shares perspectives on how the industry will change and how this change should be anticipated. Moderator: Meg Tirrell
Senior Health and Science Reporter, CNBC
CGT becoming staple therapy what are the disruptors emerging Speakers: Lisa Dechamps
SVP & Chief Business Officer, Novartis Gene Therapies
Reimagine medicine with collaboration at MGH, MDM condition in children
The Science is there, sustainable processes and systems impact is transformational
Value based pricing, risk sharing Payers and Pharma for one time therapy with life span effect
Head, Pharmaceuticals Research & Development, Bayer AG
CGT – 2016 and in 2020 new leadership and capability
Disease Biology and therapeutics
Regenerative Medicine: CGT vs repair building pipeline in ophthalmology and cardiovascular
During Pandemic: Deliver Medicines like Moderna, Pfizer – collaborations between competitors with Government Bayer entered into Vaccines in 5 days, all processes had to change access innovations developed over decades for medical solutions
GCT represents a large and growing market for novel therapeutics that has several segments. These include Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Neurological Diseases, Infectious Disease, Ophthalmology, Benign Blood Disorders, and many others; Manufacturing and Supply Chain including CDMO’s and CMO’s; Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Tools and Platforms (viral vectors, nano delivery, gene editing, etc.). Bayer’s pharma business participates in virtually all of these segments. How does a Company like Bayer approach the development of a portfolio in a space as large and as diverse as this one? How does Bayer approach the support of the production infrastructure with unique demands and significant differences from its historical requirements? Moderator:
EVP, Pharmaceuticals, Head of Cell & Gene Therapy, Bayer AG
CGT will bring treatment to cure, delivery of therapies
Be a Leader repair, regenerate, cure
Technology and Science for CGT – building a portfolio vs single asset decision criteria development of IP market access patients access acceleration of new products
Bayer strategy: build platform for use by four domains
Gener augmentation
Autologeneic therapy, analytics
Gene editing
Oncology Cell therapy tumor treatment: What kind of cells – the jury is out
Of 23 product launch at Bayer no prediction is possible some high some lows
Gene delivery uses physical, chemical, or viral means to introduce genetic material into cells. As more genetically modified therapies move closer to the market, challenges involving safety, efficacy, and manufacturing have emerged. Optimizing lipidic and polymer nanoparticles and exosomal delivery is a short-term priority. This panel will examine how the short-term and long-term challenges are being tackled particularly for non-viral delivery modalities. Moderator: Natalie Artzi, PhD
Gene editing was recognized by the Nobel Committee as “one of gene technology’s sharpest tools, having a revolutionary impact on life sciences.” Introduced in 2011, gene editing is used to modify DNA. It has applications across almost all categories of disease and is also being used in agriculture and public health.
Today’s panel is made up of pioneers who represent foundational aspects of gene editing. They will discuss the movement of the technology into the therapeutic mainstream.
Successes in gene editing – lessons learned from late-stage assets (sickle cell, ophthalmology)
When to use what editing tool – pros and cons of traditional gene-editing v. base editing. Is prime editing the future? Specific use cases for epigenetic editing.
When we reach widespread clinical use – role of off-target editing – is the risk real? How will we mitigate? How practical is patient-specific off-target evaluation?
There are several dozen companies working to develop gene or cell therapies for Sickle Cell Disease, Beta Thalassemia, and Fanconi Anemia. In some cases, there are enzyme replacement therapies that are deemed effective and safe. In other cases, the disease is only managed at best. This panel will address a number of questions that are particular to this class of genetic diseases:
What are the pros and cons of various strategies for treatment? There are AAV-based editing, non-viral delivery even oligonucleotide recruitment of endogenous editing/repair mechanisms. Which approaches are most appropriate for which disease?
How can companies increase the speed of recruitment for clinical trials when other treatments are available? What is the best approach to educate patients on a novel therapeutic?
How do we best address ethnic and socio-economic diversity to be more representative of the target patient population?
How long do we have to follow up with the patients from the scientific, patient’s community, and payer points of view? What are the current FDA and EMA guidelines for long-term follow-up?
Where are we with regards to surrogate endpoints and their application to clinically meaningful endpoints?
What are the emerging ethical dilemmas in pediatric gene therapy research? Are there challenges with informed consent and pediatric assent for trial participation?
Are there differences in reimbursement policies for these different blood disorders? Clearly durability of response is a big factor. Are there other considerations?
Oligonucleotide drugs have recently come into their own with approvals from companies such as Biogen, Alnylam, Novartis and others. This panel will address several questions:
How important is the delivery challenge for oligonucleotides? Are technological advancements emerging that will improve the delivery of oligonucleotides to the CNS or skeletal muscle after systemic administration?
Will oligonucleotides improve as a class that will make them even more effective? Are further advancements in backbone chemistry anticipated, for example.
Will oligonucleotide based therapies blaze trails for follow-on gene therapy products?
Are small molecules a threat to oligonucleotide-based therapies?
Beyond exon skipping and knock-down mechanisms, what other roles will oligonucleotide-based therapies take mechanistically — can genes be activating oligonucleotides? Is there a place for multiple mechanism oligonucleotide medicines?
Are there any advantages of RNAi-based oligonucleotides over ASOs, and if so for what use?
Computer connection to the iCloud of WordPress.com FROZE completely at 10:30AM EST and no file update was possible. COVERAGE OF MAY 21, 2021 IS RECORDED BELOW FOLLOWING THE AGENDA BY COPY AN DPASTE OF ALL THE TWEETS I PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
Partner, Mass General Brigham Innovation Fund
Strategies, success what changes are needed in the drug discovery process Speakers:
Bring disruptive frontier as a platform with reliable delivery CGT double knock out disease cure all change efficiency and scope human centric vs mice centered right scale of data converted into therapeutics acceleratetion
Innovation in drugs 60% fails in trial because of Toxicology system of the future deal with big diseases
Moderna is an example in unlocking what is inside us Microbiome and beyond discover new drugs epigenetics
Manufacturing change is not a new clinical trial FDA need to be presented with new rethinking for big innovations Drug pricing cheaper requires systematization How to systematically scaling up systematize the discovery and the production regulatory innovations
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
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 Translational medicine funding stem cells enormous opportunities
Ear inside the scall compartments and receptors responsible for hearing highly differentiated tall ask to identify cell for anticipated differentiation
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
VP, Venture, Mass General Brigham
Saturation reached or more investment is coming in CGT
Pharmacologic agent in existing cause another disorders locomo-movement related
efficacy Autologous cell therapy transplantation approach program T cells into dopamine generating neurons greater than Allogeneic cell transplantation
Current market does not have delivery mechanism that a drug-delivery is the solution Trials would fail on DELIVERY
Immune suppressed patients during one year to avoid graft rejection Autologous approach of Parkinson patient genetically mutated reprogramed as dopamine generating neuron – unknowns are present
Circuitry restoration
Microenvironment disease ameliorate symptoms – education of patients on the treatment
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.
ALL THE TWEETS PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021 INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
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
Neuroscientists at Harvard medical School are trying to understand the biology of long-term memory and fine ways to intercede when memory deficits happen with age or disease. They identified a new mechanism that neurons in the adult mouse hippocampus use to control signals they collect from other neurons, in a process that looks critical for memory consolidation and recall.
The investigators detected new experiences activate sparse populations of neurons in the hippocampus that express two genes, Fos and Scg2. The genes permit neurons to fine-tune inputs, to dampen neuronal excitation. The mechanism allows neurons to better talk to each other so that the next time a memory needs to be remembered, the neurons fire extra synchronously.
According to Dr. Yap and his team, the brain must somehow wire an experience into neurons so that when these neurons are reactivated, the initial experience can be recalled. Researchers hypothesized that Fos can play a vital role in learning and memory, but for decades, the precise function of the gene has stayed a mystery. In order to investigate their theory, the researchers exposed mice to new new environments and observed at pyramidal neurons. They observed that relatively sparse populations of neurons express Fos After exposure to a new experience. Then they prevent these neurons from expressing Fos, using a virus-based tool delivered to a specific area of the hippocampus, which left other cells unaffected.
Mice that had Fos blocked in this manner presented noteworthy memory deficits when evaluated in a maze that required them to recollect spatial details, representing that the gene plays a vital role in memory formation. They evaluated the differences between neurons that expressed Fos and those that did not. Withoptogenics to turn inputs from nearby neurons on or off, they discovered that the activity of Fos-expressing neurons was affected by two types of interneurons. Neurons expressing Fos were created to receive increased activity-dampening signals from one different type of interneuron and reduced inhibitory signals from another type. These signaling patterns vanished in neurons with blocked Fos expression.
Upon further investigation, the researchers looked at the function of Fos, which codes for a transcription factor protein that regulates other genes, which uses single-cell sequencing and additional genomic screens to classify genes activated by Fos. They found that Scg2 gene played a critical role in regulating inhibitory signals.
In mice with Scg2 gene is silenced by experimentation, Fos-activated neurons in the hippocampus displayed a defect in signaling and they also had defects in theta and gamma rhythms, brain properties believed to be essential features of learning and memory.
The study results indicate a possible molecular- and circuit-level mechanism for long-term memory. They showed how fundamental biology of memory formation and have broad implications for diseases of memory dysfunction.
Biomolecular Condensates: A new approach to biology originated @MIT – Drug Discovery at DewPoint Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA gets new leaders, Ameet Nathwani, MD (ex-Sanofi, ex-Novartis) as Chief Executive Officer and Arie Belldegrun, PhD (ex-Kite Therapeutics) on R&D
“The real voyage of discovery consists, not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” Marcel Proust
Starting with the study of P granules in C.elegans embryos in 2009, Tony Hyman, working with his collaborators like Frank Julicher, Cliff Brangwynne, Simon Alberti, Mike Rosen, and Rohit Pappu, began to unravel the mysteries of biomolecular condensates. These scientists realized that P granules behave like liquid droplets that form by phase separation (think of oil droplets in salad dressing) and called them condensates.
In subsequent studies, they found to their surprise that many compartments inside cells had the behavior of condensates: they are liquid-like and form by phase separation.
Inspired by the work of Tony and his colleagues, Richard Young, Phillip Sharp, and Arup Chakraborty at MIT applied these approaches to the study of gene expression, similarly shedding light on many important questions in gene control.
Other related article published in this Online Open Access Scientific Journal include:
Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.
Most significant article published in the Society of Evolution, Medicine and Public Health won Prize: polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
UPDATED on 8/30/2020
Analysis of polygenic risk score usage and performance in diverse human populations
A historical tendency to use European ancestry samples hinders medical genetics research, including the use of polygenic scores, which are individual-level metrics of genetic risk. We analyze the first decade of polygenic scoring studies (2008–2017, inclusive), and find that 67% of studies included exclusively European ancestry participants and another 19% included only East Asian ancestry participants. Only 3.8% of studies were among cohorts of African, Hispanic, or Indigenous peoples. We find that predictive performance of European ancestry-derived polygenic scores is lower in non-European ancestry samples (e.g. African ancestry samples: t = −5.97, df = 24, p = 3.7 × 10−6), and we demonstrate the effects of methodological choices in polygenic score distributions for worldwide populations. These findings highlight the need for improved treatment of linkage disequilibrium and variant frequencies when applying polygenic scoring to cohorts of non-European ancestry, and bolster the rationale for large-scale GWAS in diverse human populations.
You might be interested in the paper “interpreting polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences” by N. Rosenberg, M. Edge, J. Pritchard, and M. Feldman, published in Evolution, Medicine and Public Health (2019). Rosenberg and Pritchard are my former PhD students, both full professors at Stanford, and M.Edge is a student of Rosenberg.
It is my pleasure in my role as President of the International Society for Evolution, Medicine and Public Health to inform you that your 2019 EMPH article, “Interpreting polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences” has won The George C. Williams Prize which is awarded each year to the first author of the most significant article published in the Society’s flagship journal, Evolution, Medicine and Public Health.
The Prize recognizes the contributions of George C. Williams to evolutionary medicine and aims to encourage and highlight important research in this growing field. It includes $5,000 and an invitation to present at the online lecture series, Club EvMed. The Prize is made possible by donations from Doris Williams, Randolph Nesse, and other supporters of EMPH.
Recent analyses of polygenic scores have opened new discussions concerning the genetic basis and evolutionary significance of differences among populations in distributions of phenotypes. Here, we highlight limitations in research on polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation and population differences. We show how genetic contributions to traits, as estimated by polygenic scores, combine with environmental contributions so that differences among populations in trait distributions need not reflect corresponding differences in genetic propensity. Under a null model in which phenotypes are selectively neutral, genetic propensity differences contributing to phenotypic differences among populations are predicted to be small. We illustrate this null hypothesis in relation to health disparities between African Americans and European Americans, discussing alternative hypotheses with selective and environmental effects. Close attention to the limitations of research on polygenic phenomena is important for the interpretation of their relationship to human population differences.
We are currently witnessing a surge in public interest in the intersection of evolutionary genetics with such topics as cognitive phenotypes, disease, race and heritability of human traits [1–7]. This attention emerges partly from recent advances in genomics, including the introduction of polygenic scores—the aggregation of estimated effects of genome-wide variants to predict the contribution of a person’s genome to a phenotypic trait [8–10]—and a new focus on polygenic adaptations, namely adaptations that have occurred by natural selection on traits influenced by many genes [11–13].
Theories involving natural selection have long been applied in the scientific literature to explain mean phenotypic differences among human populations [14–16]. Although new tools for statistical analysis of polygenic variation and polygenic adaptation provide opportunities for studying human evolution and the genetic basis of traits, they also generate potential for misinterpretation. In the past, public attention to research on human variation and its possible evolutionary basis has often been accompanied by claims that are not justified by the research findings [17]. Recognizing pitfalls in the interpretation of new research on human variation is therefore important for advancing discussions on associated sensitive and controversial topics.
The contribution of polygenic score distributions to phenotype distributions. Two populations are considered, populations 1 (red) and 2 (blue). Each population has a distribution of genetic propensities, which are treated as accurately estimated in the form of polygenic scores (left). The genetic propensity distribution and an environment distribution sum to produce a phenotype distribution (right). All plots have the same numerical scale. (A) Environmental differences amplify an underlying difference in genetic propensities. (B) Populations differ in their phenotypes despite having no differences in genetic propensity distributions. (C) Environmental differences obscure a difference in genetic propensities opposite in direction to the difference in phenotype means. (D) Similarity in phenotype distributions is achieved despite a difference in genetic propensity distributions by an intervention that reduces the environmental contribution for individuals with polygenic scores above a threshold. (E) Within populations, heritability is high, so that genetic variation explains the majority of phenotypic variation; however, the difference between populations is explained by an environmental difference. Panels (A–C and E) present independent normal distributions for genotype and environment that sum to produce normal distributions for phenotype. In (D), (genotype, environment) pairs are simulated from independent normal distributions and a negative constant—reflecting the effect of a medication or other intervention—is added to environmental contributions associated with simulated genotypic values that exceed a threshold
Summary
These limitations illustrate that much of the complexity embedded in use of polygenic scores—the effects of the environment on phenotype and its relationship to genotype, the proportion of variance explained, and the peculiarities of the underlying GWAS data that have been used to estimate effect sizes—is obscured by the apparent simplicity of the single values computed for each individual for each phenotype. Consequently, in using polygenic scores to describe genomic contributions to traits, particularly traits for which the total contribution of genetic variation to trait variation, as measured by heritability, is low—but even if it is high (Fig. 1E)—a difference in polygenic scores between populations provides little information about potential genetic bases for trait differences between those populations.
Unlike heritability, which ranges from 0 to 1 and therefore makes it obvious that the remaining contribution to phenotypic variation is summarized by its difference from 1, the limited explanatory role of genetics is not embedded in the nature of the polygenic scores themselves. Although polygenic scores encode knowledge about specific genetic correlates of trait variation, they do not change the conceptual framework for genetic and environmental contribution to population differences. Attributions of phenotypic differences among populations to genetic differences should therefore be treated with as much caution as similar genetic attributions from heritability in the pre-genomic era.
In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now regarded as a huge clinical success which has benefitted an estimated 16 million parents, at the time the development not only sparked moral outrage but led to political and legislative constraints. Patients undergoing IVF may be presented with numerous assisted reproductive treatments purportedly increasing the chances of pregnancy. Such commercialised “IVF add-ons” often come at high costs without clinical evidence of validity. Additionally, long-term studies of children born through IVF have historically been scarce and inconsistent in their data collection. This has meant that potential genetic predispositions, such as increased body fat composition and blood pressure, as well as congenital abnormalities long associated with IVF births, lack proof of causality.
With Preimplantation genetic testing mutated embryos are automatically discarded, whereas CRISPR could correct mutations to increase the number of viable embryos for implantation. Moreover, in instances where all embryos in a given cycle are destined to develop with severe or lethal mutations, CRISPR could bring success for otherwise doomed IVF treatments. Genetic screening programs offered to couples in hot-spot areas of carrier frequency of monogenic disorders have had huge success in alleviating regional disease burdens. Carried out since the 1970s these programs have altered the course of natural evolution, but few would dispute their benefits in preventing heritable disease transmission.
Mutations are as inevitable as death and taxes. Whilst age is considered one of the largest factors in de-novo mutation generation, it appears that these are inherited primarily from the paternal line. Thus, the paternal age of conception predominantly determines the mutation frequency inherited by children. Whereas advanced maternal age is not associated with mutagenic allele frequency but chromosomal abnormalities. The risk of aneuploidy rises steadily in mothers over the age of 26. Although embryos are screened for aneuploidy prior to implantation, with so many other factors simultaneously being screened the probability of having enough embryos remaining to allow for 50% rate of blastocyte development in-vitro are often fairly low.
Despite IVF being used routinely for over 40 years now, it’s not abundantly clear if, or how often, IVF may introduce genomic alternations or off-target affects in embryos. Likewise, scientists and clinicians are often unable to scrutinise changes produced through natural cellular processes including recombination and aging. So, it may be OK to do controlled experiments on using CRISPR to try and prevent multi-generational suffering. But, there has to be a long term investigation on the side effects of germline genome editing. Science has advanced a lot but still there are lot of things that are yet to be described or discovered by science. Trying to reduce human suffering should not give rise to new bigger sufferings and care must be taken not to create a Frankenstein.
Evolution of the Human Cell Genome Biology Field of Gene Expression, Gene Regulation, Gene Regulatory Networks and Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in Large-Scale Biological Data Analysis
How transcription factors (TFs) interpret cis-regulatory DNA sequence to control gene expression remains unclear, largely because past studies using native and engineered sequences had insufficient scale. Here, we measure the expression output of >100 million synthetic yeast promoter sequences that are fully random. These sequences yield diverse, reproducible expression levels that can be explained by their chance inclusion of functional TF binding sites. We use machine learning to build interpretable models of transcriptional regulation that predict ~94% of the expression driven from independent test promoters and ~89% of the expression driven from native yeast promoter fragments. These models allow us to characterize each TF’s specificity, activity and interactions with chromatin. TF activity depends on binding-site strand, position, DNA helical face and chromatin context. Notably, expression level is influenced by weak regulatory interactions, which confound designed-sequence studies. Our analyses show that massive-throughput assays of fully random DNA can provide the big data necessary to develop complex, predictive models of gene regulation.
The Evolution of the Human Cell Genome Biology Field of Gene Expression, Gene Regulation, Gene Regulatory Networks and Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in Large-Scale Biological Data Analysis is presented in the following Table
50
Liu, X., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. Trans effects on gene expression can drive omnigenic inheritance. Cell 177, 1022–1034 e1026 (2019).
5
Muerdter, F. et al. Resolving systematic errors in widely used enhancer activity assays in human cells. Nat. Methods 15, 141–149 (2018).
6
Wang, X. et al. High-resolution genome-wide functional dissection of transcriptional regulatory regions and nucleotides in human. Nat. Commun. 9, 5380 (2018).
15
Yona, A. H., Alm, E. J. & Gore, J. Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters. Nat. Commun. 9, 1530 (2018).
4
van Arensbergen, J. et al. Genome-wide mapping of autonomous promoter activity in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 145–153 (2017).
14
Cuperus, J. T. et al. Deep learning of the regulatory grammar of yeast 5’ untranslated regions from 500,000 random sequences. Genome Res. 27, 2015–2024 (2017).
31
Levo, M. et al. Systematic investigation of transcription factor activity in the context of chromatin using massively parallel binding and expression assays. Mol. Cell 65, 604–617 e606 (2017).
49
Boyle, E. A., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. An expanded view of complex traits: from polygenic to omnigenic. Cell 169, 1177–1186 (2017).
Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. arXiv 1603.04467 (2016).
20
Shalem, O. et al. Systematic dissection of the sequence determinants of gene 3’ end mediated expression control. PLoS Genet. 11, e1005147 (2015).
55
Deng, C., Daley, T. & Smith, A. D. Applications of species accumulation curves in large-scale biological data analysis. Quant. Biol. 3, 135–144 (2015).
9
Hughes, T. R. & de Boer, C. G. Mapping yeast transcriptional networks. Genetics 195, 9–36 (2013).
10
Jolma, A. et al. DNA-binding specificities of human transcription factors. Cell 152, 327–339 (2013).
19
Kosuri, S. et al. Composability of regulatory sequences controlling transcription and translation in Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14024–14029 (2013).
7
Sharon, E. et al. Inferring gene regulatory logic from high-throughput measurements of thousands of systematically designed promoters. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 521–530 (2012).
18
de Boer, C. G. & Hughes, T. R. YeTFaSCo: a database of evaluated yeast transcription factor sequence specificities. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D169–D179 (2012).
56
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).
61
Cherry, J. M. et al. Saccharomyces Genome Database: the genomics resource of budding yeast. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D700–D705 (2012).
11
Nutiu, R. et al. Direct measurement of DNA affinity landscapes on a high-throughput sequencing instrument. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 659–664 (2011).
26
Zhang, Z. et al. A packing mechanism for nucleosome organization reconstituted across a eukaryotic genome. Science 332, 977–980 (2011).
30
Ganapathi, M. et al. Extensive role of the general regulatory factors, Abf1 and Rap1, in determining genome-wide chromatin structure in budding yeast. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 2032–2044 (2011).
52
Erb, I. & van Nimwegen, E. Transcription factor binding site positioning in yeast: proximal promoter motifs characterize TATA-less promoters. PloS One 6, e24279 (2011).
3
Kinney, J. B., Murugan, A., Callan, C. G. Jr. & Cox, E. C. Using deep sequencing to characterize the biophysical mechanism of a transcriptional regulatory sequence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA107, 9158–9163 (2010).
8
Gertz, J., Siggia, E. D. & Cohen, B. A. Analysis of combinatorial cis-regulation in synthetic and genomic promoters. Nature 457, 215–218 (2009).
16
Wunderlich, Z. & Mirny, L. A. Different gene regulation strategies revealed by analysis of binding motifs. Trends Genet. 25, 434–440 (2009).
27
Hesselberth, J. R. et al. Global mapping of protein–DNA interactions in vivo by digital genomic footprinting. Nat. Methods 6, 283–289 (2009).
29
Hartley, P. D. & Madhani, H. D. Mechanisms that specify promoter nucleosome location and identity. Cell 137, 445–458 (2009).
51
Gibson, D. G. et al. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nat. Methods 6, 343–345 (2009).
58
Segal, E. & Widom, J. From DNA sequence to transcriptional behaviour: a quantitative approach. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 443–456 (2009).
2
Yuan, Y., Guo, L., Shen, L. & Liu, J. S. Predicting gene expression from sequence: a reexamination. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e243 (2007).
46
Hibbs, M. A. et al. Exploring the functional landscape of gene expression: directed search of large microarray compendia. Bioinformatics 23, 2692–2699 (2007).
25
Liu, X., Lee, C. K., Granek, J. A., Clarke, N. D. & Lieb, J. D. Whole-genome comparison of Leu3 binding in vitro and in vivo reveals the importance of nucleosome occupancy in target site selection. Genome Res. 16, 1517–1528 (2006).
34
Roberts, G. G. & Hudson, A. P. Transcriptome profiling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth reveals extensive metabolic and structural remodeling. Mol. Genet. Genomics 276, 170–186 (2006).
48
Tanay, A. Extensive low-affinity transcriptional interactions in the yeast genome. Gen. Res. 16, 962–972 (2006).
53
Tong, A. H. & Boone, C. Synthetic genetic array analysis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Methods Mol. Biol. 313, 171–192 (2006).
57
Li, W. & Godzik, A. Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 22, 1658–1659 (2006).
62
Chua, G. et al. Identifying transcription factor functions and targets by phenotypic activation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12045–12050 (2006).
17
Arnosti, D. N. & Kulkarni, M. M. Transcriptional enhancers: intelligent enhanceosomes or flexible billboards? J. Cell. Biochem. 94, 890–898 (2005).
21
Granek, J. A. & Clarke, N. D. Explicit equilibrium modeling of transcription-factor binding and gene regulation. Genome Biol. 6, R87 (2005).
1
Beer, M. A. & Tavazoie, S. Predicting gene expression from sequence. Cell 117, 185–198 (2004).
28
Bernstein, B. E., Liu, C. L., Humphrey, E. L., Perlstein, E. O. & Schreiber, S. L. Global nucleosome occupancy in yeast. Genome Biol. 5, R62 (2004).
44
Kim, T. S., Kim, H. Y., Yoon, J. H. & Kang, H. S. Recruitment of the Swi/Snf complex by Ste12-Tec1 promotes Flo8-Mss11-mediated activation of STA1 expression. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 9542–9556 (2004).
45
Harbison, C. T. et al. Transcriptional regulatory code of a eukaryotic genome. Nature 431, 99–104 (2004).
60
Kent, N. A., Eibert, S. M. & Mellor, J. Cbf1p is required for chromatin remodeling at promoter-proximal CACGTG motifs in yeast. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 27116–27123 (2004).
22
Kulkarni, M. M. & Arnosti, D. N. Information display by transcriptional enhancers. Development 130, 6569–6575 (2003).
24
Conlon, E. M., Liu, X. S., Lieb, J. D. & Liu, J. S. Integrating regulatory motif discovery and genome-wide expression analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3339–3344 (2003).
43
Neely, K. E., Hassan, A. H., Brown, C. E., Howe, L. & Workman, J. L. Transcription activator interactions with multiple SWI/SNF subunits. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 1615–1625 (2002).
23
Bussemaker, H. J., Li, H. & Siggia, E. D. Regulatory element detection using correlation with expression. Nat. Genet. 27, 167–171 (2001).
37
Haurie, V. et al. The transcriptional activator Cat8p provides a major contribution to the reprogramming of carbon metabolism during the diauxic shift in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 76–85 (2001).
39
Grauslund, M. & Ronnow, B. Carbon source-dependent transcriptional regulation of the mitochondrial glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene, GUT2, from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Can. J. Microbiol. 46, 1096–1100 (2000).
42
Cullen, P. J. & Sprague, G. F. Jr. Glucose depletion causes haploid invasive growth in yeast. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 13619–13624 (2000).
38
Sato, T. et al. TheE-box DNA binding protein Sgc1p suppresses the gcr2 mutation, which is involved in transcriptional activation of glycolytic genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEBS Lett. 463, 307–311 (1999).
40
Madhani, H. D. & Fink, G. R. Combinatorial control required for the specificity of yeast MAPK signaling. Science 275, 1314–1317 (1997).
41
Gavrias, V., Andrianopoulos, A., Gimeno, C. J. & Timberlake, W. E. Saccharomyces cerevisiae TEC1 is required for pseudohyphal growth. Mol. Microbiol. 19, 1255–1263 (1996).
36
Hedges, D., Proft, M. & Entian, K. D. CAT8, a new zinc cluster-encoding gene necessary for derepression of gluconeogenic enzymes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 1915–1922 (1995).
47
Bednar, J. et al. Determination of DNA persistence length by cryo-electron microscopy. Separation of the static and dynamic contributions to the apparent persistence length of DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 254, 579–594 (1995).
32
Axelrod, J. D., Reagan, M. S. & Majors, J. GAL4 disrupts a repressing nucleosome during activation of GAL1 transcription in vivo. Genes Dev. 7, 857–869 (1993).
33
Morse, R. H. Nucleosome disruption by transcription factor binding in yeast. Science 262, 1563–1566 (1993).
12
Oliphant, A. R., Brandl, C. J. & Struhl, K. Defining the sequence specificity of DNA-binding proteins by selecting binding sites from random-sequence oligonucleotides: analysis of yeast GCN4 protein. Mol. Cell. Biol. 9, 2944–2949 (1989).
35
Forsburg, S. L. & Guarente, L. Identification and characterization of HAP4: a third component of the CCAAT-bound HAP2/HAP3 heteromer. Genes Dev. 3, 1166–1178 (1989).
13
Horwitz, M. S. & Loeb, L. A. Promoters selected from random DNA sequences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 83, 7405–7409 (1986).
To access each reference as a live link, go to the number in the first column in the Table and look it up in the List of References in the Link, below
Klarman Cell Observatory, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
Carl G. de Boer
, Eeshit Dhaval Vaishnav
, Nir Friedman
& Aviv Regev
Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Koch Institute of Integrative Cancer Research, Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
Eeshit Dhaval Vaishnav
& Aviv Regev
School of Computer Science and Institute of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Ronen Sadeh
& Nir Friedman
Initiative for Maximizing Student Development Program, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Esteban Luis Abeyta
Contributions
C.G.D. and A.R. drafted the manuscript, with all authors contributing. C.G.D. analyzed the data. C.G.D., E.D.V., E.L.A. and R.S. performed the experiments. A.R. and N.F. supervised the research.
A.R. is an SAB member of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Neogene Therapeutics, Asimov, and Syros Pharmaceuticals, an equity holder of Immunitas, and a founder of and equity holder in Celsius Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cite this article
Boer, C.G., Vaishnav, E.D., Sadeh, R. et al. Deciphering eukaryotic gene-regulatory logic with 100 million random promoters. Nat Biotechnol (2019) doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0315-8
NSPR1 and DEC2 genes: Survival on 4.5 hours of Sleep per night: A mutation in the β1-adrenergic receptor gene in humans who require fewer hours of sleep than most, ADRB1+ neurons are active during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and wakefulness
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
10/2019 RESEARCH ARTICLE SLEEP
Mutant neuropeptide S receptor reduces sleep duration with preserved memory consolidation
Sleep is a crucial physiological process for our survival and cognitive performance, yet the factors controlling human sleep regulation remain poorly understood. Here, we identified a missense mutation in a G protein–coupled neuropeptide S receptor 1 (NPSR1) that is associated with a natural short sleep phenotype in humans. Mice carrying the homologous mutation exhibited less sleep time despite increased sleep pressure. These animals were also resistant to contextual memory deficits associated with sleep deprivation. In vivo, the mutant receptors showed increased sensitivity to neuropeptide S exogenous activation. These results suggest that the NPS/NPSR1 pathway might play a critical role in regulating human sleep duration and in the link between sleep homeostasis and memory consolidation.
It is possible that drugs could be developed to target either the NSPR1 or DEC2 genes, as a treatment for insomnia or other sleep disorders. However, further understanding of exactly how these genes function would be required before this stage. Both are involved in brain function, so targeting them could lead to negative neural side effects.
A mutation in ADRB1 leads to natural short sleep trait in humans
Mice engineered with same mutation have similar short sleep behavior as humans
Activity of dorsal pons ADRB1 + neurons associates with REM sleep and wakefulness
Mutation increases the population activity of dorsal pons ADRB1 + neurons
Summary
Sleep is crucial for our survival, and many diseases are linked to long-term poor sleep quality. Before we can use sleep to enhance our health and performance and alleviate diseases associated with poor sleep, a greater understanding of sleep regulation is necessary. We have identified a mutation in the β 1-adrenergic receptor gene in humans who require fewer hours of sleep than most. In vitro, this mutation leads to decreased protein stability and dampened signaling in response to agonist treatment. In vivo, the mice carrying the same mutation demonstrated short sleep behavior. We found that this receptor is highly expressed in the dorsal pons and that these ADRB1+ neurons are active during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and wakefulness. Activating these neurons can lead to wakefulness, and the activity of these neurons is affected by the mutation. These results highlight the important role of β 1-adrenergic receptors in sleep/wake regulation.
Other related articles on Circadian Rhythm and Sleep published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:
2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine jointly to Jeffrey C. Hall (ex-Brandeis, University of Maine), Michael Rosbash (Brandeis University) and Michael W. Young (Rockefeller University in New York) for their discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm
Patient-Reported Outcomes Study, Presented at SLEEP 2018, Provides Confirmatory Real-World Evidence of the Previously Presented 7-hour Action of REMfresh®, the First Continuous Release and Absorption Melatonin™
Prolonged Wakefulness: Lack of Sufficient Duration of Sleep as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Diseases – Indications for Cardiovascular Chrono-therapeutics
Cancer Genomics: Multiomic Analysis of Single Cells and Tumor Heterogeneity
Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD
4.3.7 Cancer Genomics: Multiomic Analysis of Single Cells and Tumor Heterogeneity, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 4: Single Cell Genomics
To better design treatments for cancer, it is important to understand the heterogeneity in tumors and how this contributes to metastasis. To examine this process, Bian et al. used a single-cell triple omics sequencing (scTrio-seq) technique to examine the mutations, transcriptome, and methylome within colorectal cancer tumors and metastases from 10 individual patients. The analysis provided insights into tumor evolution, linked DNA methylation to genetic lineages, and showed that DNA methylation levels are consistent within lineages but can differ substantially among clones.
Although genomic instability, epigenetic abnormality, and gene expression dysregulation are hallmarks of colorectal cancer, these features have not been simultaneously analyzed at single-cell resolution. Using optimized single-cell multiomics sequencing together with multiregional sampling of the primary tumor and lymphatic and distant metastases, we developed insights beyond intratumoral heterogeneity. Genome-wide DNA methylation levels were relatively consistent within a single genetic sublineage. The genome-wide DNA demethylation patterns of cancer cells were consistent in all 10 patients whose DNA we sequenced. The cancer cells’ DNA demethylation degrees clearly correlated with the densities of the heterochromatin-associated histone modification H3K9me3 of normal tissue and those of repetitive element long interspersed nuclear element 1. Our work demonstrates the feasibility of reconstructing genetic lineages and tracing their epigenomic and transcriptomic dynamics with single-cell multiomics sequencing.
Global SCNA patterns (250-kb resolution) of CRC01. Each row represents an individual cell. The subclonal SCNAs used for identifying genetic sublineages were marked and indexed; for details, see fig. S6B. On the top of the heatmap, the amplification or deletion frequency of each genomic bin (250 kb) of the non-hypermutated CRC samples from the TCGA Project and patient CRC01’s cancer cells are shown.
” data-icon-position=”” data-hide-link-title=”0″>
Fig. 1Reconstruction of genetic lineages with scTrio-seq2.
Global SCNA patterns (250-kb resolution) of CRC01. Each row represents an individual cell. The subclonal SCNAs used for identifying genetic sublineages were marked and indexed; for details, see fig. S6B. On the top of the heatmap, the amplification or deletion frequency of each genomic bin (250 kb) of the non-hypermutated CRC samples
The second annual PureTech Health BIG Summit brings together an elite ensemble of leading scientific researchers, investors, and CEOs and R&D leaders from major pharmaceutical, technology, and biotech companies.
The BIG Summit is designed to stimulate ideas that will have an impact on existing pipelines and catalyze future interactions among a group of delegates that represent leaders and innovators in their fields.
Please follow the discussion on Twitter using #BIGAxisSummit
By invitation only; registration is non-transferable.
For more information, please contact PureTechHealthSummit@PureTechHealth.com
Back for final sessions at #BIGAxisSummit. @PureTechH Jim Harper of Sonde Health talking about how voice data — pacing, fine motor articulation, oscillation — can point the way to objective, quantitative measures for detecting and monitoring depression.
Paul Biondi at #BIGAxisSummit : What makes big deals happen is financial, and *deep conviction* of a big future fit. Disproportionate valuation from bidders is expected.
Love this. We often reduce everything to mathematical analyses to champion or ridicule deals. Not that simple
Bob Langer (@MIT) asks how #lymphatics affected by #aging. Santambrogio: typically blame aging #immune cells for increased disease, but aging affects lymphatics too (less efficient trafficking shown). Rejuvenating these could affect several aging-related diseases #BigAxisSummit
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa