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.
Article SELECTION from Collection of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN Scientific Articles on PULSE on LinkedIn.com for Training Small Language Models (SLMs) in Domain-aware Content of Medical, Pharmaceutical, Life Sciences and Healthcare by 15 Subjects Matter
Article selection: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
#1 – February 20, 2016
Contributions to Personalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic Research
Sleeping Threats: Immune System’s Watch on Dormant Cancer
Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph. D.
The immune system’s role in regulating dormant cancer cells has been increasingly elucidated, revealing a complex interplay that influences metastasis and cancer recurrence. Dormant cells, which enter a non-proliferative state, can evade immune detection and remain quiescent for prolonged periods.
Mechanisms of immune evasion include down-regulation of antigen presentation and residence within immune-privileged niches such as bone marrow. Both innate and adaptive immunity, particularly CD8+ T cells and natural killer cells, are involved in maintaining dormancy and preventing metastatic outgrowth.
Micro-environmental factors that modulate immune surveillance and dormancy status have been identified. Changes in cytokine profiles and inflammation can disrupt dormancy, leading to cancer cell reactivation and metastasis.
Therapeutic approaches to sustain dormancy or eliminate dormant cells are under development. These include immune checkpoint inhibitors, cancer vaccines, and cytokine modulators aimed at enhancing immune recognition and clearance.
By targeting dormant cancer cells through immune modulation, it is anticipated that metastasis can be delayed or prevented, significantly improving long-term patient outcomes and reducing cancer mortality.
SNU-BioTalk 2025: Symphony of Cellular Signals in Metabolism and Immune Response – International Conference at Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata, India on 16 & 17 January 2025
Joint Convenor: Dr. Sudipta Saha (Member of LPBI since 2012)
About the Conference:
The International Conference on ‘Symphony of Cellular Signals in Metabolism and Immune Response’ focuses on the complex signalling pathways governing cellular functions in health and disease. It will explore the cellular mechanisms that regulate metabolism, immune responses, and survival, highlighting advances in medical science and biotechnology. Bringing together leading experts and emerging researchers, the conference will feature keynote lectures, panel discussions, research presentations, and interactive sessions, all designed to foster collaboration and innovation. By promoting an exchange of ideas, the event aims to drive transformative insights and solutions that impact human health and sustainable healthcare practices.
The conference will also be livestreamed on YouTube and Facebook
This programme will also host I-STEM: Indian Science, Technology and Engineering facilities Map (I-STEM) is a dynamic and interactive national portal for research cooperation.
Thrust areas:
Intracellular signalling processes of cellular metabolism
Signalling pathways in physiological and pathological processes
As part of the all-of-America approach to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been working with partners across the U.S. government, academia and industry to expedite the development and availability of critical medical products to treat this novel virus. Today, we are providing an update on one potential treatment called convalescent plasma and encouraging those who have recovered from COVID-19 to donate plasma to help others fight this disease.
Convalescent plasma is an antibody-rich product made from blood donated by people who have recovered from the disease caused by the virus. Prior experience with respiratory viruses and limited data that have emerged from China suggest that convalescent plasma has the potential to lessen the severity or shorten the length of illness caused by COVID-19. It is important that we evaluate this potential therapy in the context of clinical trials, through expanded access, as well as facilitate emergency access for individual patients, as appropriate.
The response to the agency’s recently announced national efforts to facilitate the development of and access to convalescent plasma has been tremendous. More than 1,040 sites and 950 physician investigators nationwide have signed on to participate in the Mayo Clinic-ledExternal Link Disclaimer expanded access protocol. A number of clinical trials are also taking place to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma and the FDA has granted numerous single patient emergency investigational new drug (eIND) applications as well.
FDA issues guidelines on clinical trials and obtaining emergency enrollment concerning convalescent plasma
FDA has issued guidance to provide recommendations to health care providers and investigators on the administration and study of investigational convalescent plasma collected from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma) during the public health emergency.
The guidance provides recommendations on the following:
Because COVID-19 convalescent plasma has not yet been approved for use by FDA, it is regulated as an investigational product. A health care provider must participate in one of the pathways described below. FDA does not collect COVID-19 convalescent plasma or provide COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Health care providers or acute care facilities should instead obtain COVID-19 convalescent plasma from an FDA-registered blood establishment.
Excerpts from the guidance document are provided below.
Background
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) plays a critical role in protecting the United States (U.S.) from threats including emerging infectious diseases, such as the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. FDA is committed to providing timely guidance to support response efforts to this pandemic.
One investigational treatment being explored for COVID-19 is the use of convalescent plasma collected from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. Convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is being studied for administration to patients with COVID-19. Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic.
Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe and effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Therefore, it is important to study the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical trials.
Pathways for Use of Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma
The following pathways are available for administering or studying the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma:
Clinical Trials
Investigators wishing to study the use of convalescent plasma in a clinical trial should submit requests to FDA for investigational use under the traditional IND regulatory pathway (21 CFR Part 312). CBER’s Office of Blood Research and Review is committed to engaging with sponsors and reviewing such requests expeditiously. During the COVID-19 pandemic, INDs may be submitted via email to CBERDCC_eMailSub@fda.hhs.gov.
Expanded Access
An IND application for expanded access is an alternative for use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 disease who are not eligible or who are unable to participate in randomized clinical trials (21 CFR 312.305). FDA has worked with multiple federal partners and academia to open an expanded access protocol to facilitate access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma across the nation. Access to this investigational product may be available through participation of acute care facilities in an investigational expanded access protocol under an IND that is already in place.
Although participation in clinical trials or an expanded access program are ways for patients to obtain access to convalescent plasma, for various reasons these may not be readily available to all patients in potential need. Therefore, given the public health emergency that the COVID-19 pandemic presents, and while clinical trials are being conducted and a national expanded access protocol is available, FDA also is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections through the process of the patient’s physician requesting a single patient emergency IND (eIND) for the individual patient under 21 CFR 312.310. This process allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization, if the applicable regulatory criteria are met. Note, in such case, a licensed physician seeking to administer COVID-19 convalescent plasma to an individual patient must request the eIND (see 21 CFR 312.310(b)).
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to fight COVID-19. Based on scientific evidence available, the FDA concluded, as outlined in its decision memorandum, this product may be effective in treating COVID-19 and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.
Today’s action follows the FDA’s extensive review of the science and data generated over the past several months stemming from efforts to facilitate emergency access to convalescent plasma for patients as clinical trials to definitively demonstrate safety and efficacy remain ongoing.
The EUA authorizes the distribution of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the U.S. and its administration by health care providers, as appropriate, to treat suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Alex Azar, Health and Human Services Secretary:
“The FDA’s emergency authorization for convalescent plasma is a milestone achievement in President Trump’s efforts to save lives from COVID-19,” said Secretary Azar. “The Trump Administration recognized the potential of convalescent plasma early on. Months ago, the FDA, BARDA, and private partners began work on making this product available across the country while continuing to evaluate data through clinical trials. Our work on convalescent plasma has delivered broader access to the product than is available in any other country and reached more than 70,000 American patients so far. We are deeply grateful to Americans who have already donated and encourage individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 to consider donating convalescent plasma.”
Stephen M. Hahn, M.D., FDA Commissioner:
“I am committed to releasing safe and potentially helpful treatments for COVID-19 as quickly as possible in order to save lives. We’re encouraged by the early promising data that we’ve seen about convalescent plasma. The data from studies conducted this year shows that plasma from patients who’ve recovered from COVID-19 has the potential to help treat those who are suffering from the effects of getting this terrible virus,” said Dr. Hahn. “At the same time, we will continue to work with researchers to continue randomized clinical trials to study the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma in treating patients infected with the novel coronavirus.”
Scientific Evidence on Convalescent Plasma
Based on an evaluation of the EUA criteria and the totality of the available scientific evidence, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research determined that the statutory criteria for issuing an EUA criteria were met.
The FDA determined that it is reasonable to believe that COVID-19 convalescent plasma may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients. The agency also determined that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to treat COVID-19, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product and that that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative treatments.
CLINICAL MEMORANDUM From: , OBRR/DBCD/CRS To: , OBRR Through: , OBRR/DBCD , OBRR/DBCD , OBRR/DBCD/CRS Re: EUA 26382: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Request (original request 8/12/20; amended request 8/23/20) Product: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Items reviewed: EUA request Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers Fact Sheet for Recipients Sponsor: Robert Kadlec, M.D. Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP), an unapproved biological product, is proposed for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act),(21 USC 360bbb-3) as a passive immune therapy for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a serious or life-threatening disease. There currently is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to CCP for treating COVID-19. The sponsor has pointed to four lines of evidence to support that CCP may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: 1) History of convalescent plasma for respiratory coronaviruses; 2) Evidence of preclinical safety and efficacy in animal models; 3) Published studies of the safety and efficacy of CCP; and 4) Data on safety and efficacy from the National Expanded Access Treatment Protocol (EAP) sponsored by the Mayo Clinic. Considering the totality of the scientific evidence presented in the EUA, I conclude that current data for the use of CCP in adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 supports the conclusion that CCP meets the “may be effective” criterion for issuance of an EUA from section 564(c)(2)(A) of the Act. It is reasonable to conclude that the known and potential benefits of CCP outweigh the known and potential risks of CCP for the proposed EUA. Current data suggest the largest clinical benefit is associated with high-titer units of CCP administered early course of the disease.
A letter, from Senator Warren, to Commissioner Hahn from Senate Committee asking for documentation for any communication between FDA and White House
August 25, 2020 Dr. Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. Commissioner of Food and Drugs U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Dear Commissioner Hahn: We write regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) troubling decision earlier this week to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for convalescent plasma as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1 Reports suggests that the FDA granted the EUA amid intense political pressure from President Trump and other Administration officials, despite limited evidence of convalescent plasma’s effectiveness as a COVID-19 treatment.2 To help us better understand whether the issuance of the blood plasma EUA was motivated by politics, we request copies of any and all communications between FDA and White House officials regarding the blood plasma EUA.
The authorization will allow health-care providers in the U.S. to use the plasma to treat hospitalized patients with Covid-19.
The FDA’s emergency use authorization came a day after President Trump accused the agency of delaying enrollment in clinical trials for vaccines or therapeutics.
The criticism from Trump and action from the FDA led some scientists to believe the authorization, which came on the eve of the GOP national convention, was politically motivated.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn is walking back comments on the benefits of convalescent plasma, saying he could have done a better job of explaining the data on its effectiveness against the coronavirus after authorizing it for emergency use over the weekend.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong, FDA Commissioner Hahn reiterates that his decision was based on hard evidence and scientific fact, not political pressure. The whole interview is at the link below:
Dr. Hahn corrected his initial statement about 35% of people would be cured by convalescent plasma. In the interview he stated:
I was trying to do what I do with patients, because patients often understand things in absolute terms versus relative terms. And I should’ve been more careful, there’s no question about it. What I was trying to get to is that if you look at a hundred patients who receive high titre, and a hundred patients who received low titre, the difference between those two particular subset of patients who had these specific criteria was a 35% reduction in mortality. So I frankly did not do a good job of explaining that.
FDA colleagues had frank discussion after the statement was made. He is not asking for other people in HHS to retract their statements, only is concerned that FDA has correct information for physicians and patients
Hahn is worried that people will not enroll due to chance they may be given placebo
He gave no opinion when asked if FDA should be an independent agency
For more articles on COVID19 please go to our Coronavirus Portal at
RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus taking over the cells it infects: Virulence – Pathogen’s ability to infect a Resistant Host: The Imbalance between Controlling Virus Replication versus Activation of the Adaptive Immune Response
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – I added colors and bold face
UPDATED on 9/8/2020
What bats can teach us about developing immunity to Covid-19 | Free to read
Another duality and paradox in the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients in ICUs was expressed by Mike Yoffe, MD, PhD, David H. Koch Professor of Biology and Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Yaffe has a joint appointment in Acute Care Surgery, Trauma, and Surgical Critical Care, and in Surgical Oncology @BIDMC
on 6/29 at SOLUTIONS with/in/sight at Koch Institute @MIT
How Are Cancer Researchers Fighting COVID-19? (Part II)”Jun 29, 2020 11:30 AM EST
In COVID-19 patients: two life threatening conditions are seen in ICUs:
Blood Clotting – Hypercoagulability or Thrombophilia
Cytokine Storm – immuno-inflammatory response
The coexistence of 1 and 2 – HINDERS the ability to use effectively tPA as an anti-clotting agent while the cytokine storm is present.
Mike Yoffe’s related domain of expertise:
Signaling pathways and networks that control cytokine responses and inflammation
Misregulation of cytokine feedback loops, along with inappropriate activation of the blood clotting cascade causes dysregulation of cell signaling pathways in innate immune cells (neutrophils and macrophages), resulting in tissue damage and multiple organ failure following trauma or sepsis. Our research is focused on understanding the role of the p38-MK2 pathway in cytokine control and innate immune function, and on cross-talk between cytokines, clotting factors, and neutrophil NADPH oxidase-derived ROS in tissue damage, coagulopathy, and inflammation, using biochemistry, cell biology, and mouse knock-out/knock-in models. We recently discovered a particularly important link between abnormal blood clotting and the complement pathway cytokine C5a which causes excessive production of extracellular ROS and organ damage by neutrophils after traumatic injury.
SARS-CoV-2 infection induces low IFN-I and -III levels with a moderate ISG response
Strong chemokine expression is consistent across in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo models
Low innate antiviral defenses and high pro-inflammatory cues contribute to COVID-19
Summary
Viral pandemics, such as the one caused by SARS-CoV-2, pose an imminent threat to humanity. Because of its recent emergence, there is a paucity of information regarding viral behavior and host response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we offer an in-depth analysis of the transcriptional response to SARS-CoV-2 compared with other respiratory viruses. Cell and animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to transcriptional and serum profiling of COVID-19 patients, consistently revealed a unique and inappropriate inflammatory response. This response is defined by low levels of type I and III interferons juxtaposed to elevated chemokines and high expression of IL-6. We propose that reduced innate antiviral defenses coupled with exuberant inflammatory cytokine production are the defining and driving features of COVID-19.
Defining the Transcriptional Response to SARS-CoV-2 Relative to Other Respiratory Viruses
To compare the transcriptional response of SARS-CoV-2 with other respiratory viruses, including MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-1, human parainfluenza virus 3 (HPIV3), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and IAV, we first chose to focus on infection in a variety of respiratory cell lines (Figure 1). To this end, we collected poly(A) RNA from infected cells and performed RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to estimate viral load. These data show that virus infection levels ranged from 0.1% to more than 50% of total RNA reads (Figure 1A).
Discussion
In the present study, we focus on defining the host response to SARS-CoV-2 and other human respiratory viruses in cell lines, primary cell cultures, ferrets, and COVID-19 patients. In general, our data show that the overall transcriptional footprint of SARS-CoV-2 infection was distinct in comparison with other highly pathogenic coronaviruses and common respiratory viruses such as IAV, HPIV3, and RSV. It is noteworthy that, despite a reduced IFN-I and -III response to SARS-CoV-2, we observed a consistent chemokine signature. One exception to this observation is the response to high-MOI infection in A549-ACE2 and Calu-3 cells, where replication was robust and an IFN-I and -III signature could be observed. In both of these examples, cells were infected at a rate to theoretically deliver two functional virions per cell in addition to any defective interfering particles within the virus stock that were not accounted for by plaque assays. Under these conditions, the threshold for PAMP may be achieved prior to the ability of the virus to evade detection through production of a viral antagonist. Alternatively, addition of multiple genomes to a single cell may disrupt the stoichiometry of viral components, which, in turn, may itself generate PAMPs that would not form otherwise. These ideas are supported by the fact that, at a low-MOI infection in A549-ACE2 cells, high levels of replication could also be achieved, but in the absence of IFN-I and -III induction. Taken together, these data suggest that, at low MOIs, the virus is not a strong inducer of the IFN-I and -III system, as opposed to conditions where the MOI is high.
Taken together, the data presented here suggest that the response to SARS-CoV-2 is imbalanced with regard to controlling virus replication versus activation of the adaptive immune response. Given this dynamic, treatments for COVID-19 have less to do with the IFN response and more to do with controlling inflammation. Because our data suggest that numerous chemokines and ILs are elevated in COVID-19 patients, future efforts should focus on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs that can be rapidly deployed and have immunomodulating properties.
One of the features distinguishing SARS-CoV-2 from its more pathogenic counterpart SARS-CoV is the presence of premature stop codons in its ORF3b gene. Here, we show that SARS-CoV-2 ORF3b is a potent interferon antagonist, suppressing the induction of type I interferon more efficiently than its SARS-CoV ortholog. Phylogenetic analyses and functional assays revealed that SARS-CoV-2-related viruses from bats and pangolins also encode truncated ORF3b gene products with strong anti-interferon activity. Furthermore, analyses of more than 15,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences identified a natural variant, in which a longer ORF3b reading frame was reconstituted. This variant was isolated from two patients with severe disease and further increased theability of ORF3b to suppress interferon induction. Thus, our findings not only help to explain the poor interferon response in COVID-19 patients, but also describe a possibility of the emergence of natural SARS-CoV-2 quasi-species with extended ORF3b that may exacerbate COVID-19 symptoms.
Highlights
ORF3b of SARS-CoV-2 and related bat and pangolin viruses is a potent IFN antagonist
SARS-CoV-2 ORF3b suppresses IFN induction more efficiently than SARS-CoV ortholog
The anti-IFN activity of ORF3b depends on the length of its C-terminus
An ORF3b with increased IFN antagonism was isolated from two severe COVID-19 cases
RNA (in green) from the SARS-CoV-2 virus is shown taking over the cells it infects.ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI
A deep dive into how the new coronavirus infects cells has found that it orchestrates a hostile takeover of their genes unlike any other known viruses do, producing what one leading scientist calls “unique” and “aberrant” changes.Recent studies show that in seizing control of genes in the human cells it invades, the virus changes how segments of DNA are read, doing so in a way that might explain why the elderly are more likely to die of Covid-19 and why antiviral drugs might not only save sick patients’ lives but also prevent severe disease if taken before infection.“It’s something I have never seen in my 20 years of” studying viruses, said virologist Benjamin tenOever of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, referring to how SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, hijacks cells’ genomes.The “something” he and his colleagues saw is how SARS-CoV-2 blocks one virus-fighting set of genes but allows another set to launch, a pattern never seen with other viruses. Influenza and the original SARS virus (in the early 2000s), for instance, interfere with both arms of the body’s immune response — what tenOever dubs “call to arms” genes and “call for reinforcement” genes.The first group of genes produces interferons. These proteins, which infected cells release, are biological semaphores, signaling to neighboring cells to activate some 500 of their own genes that will slow down the virus’ ability to make millions of copies of itself if it invades them. This lasts seven to 10 days, tenOever said, controlling virus replication and thereby buying time for the second group of genes to act.This second set of genes produce their own secreted proteins, called chemokines, that emit a biochemical “come here!” alarm. When far-flung antibody-making B cells and virus-killing T cells sense the alarm, they race to its source. If all goes well, the first set of genes holds the virus at bay long enough for the lethal professional killers to arrive and start eradicating viruses.
“Most other viruses interfere with some aspect of both the call to arms and the call for reinforcements,” tenOever said. “If they didn’t, no one would ever get a viral illness”: The one-two punch would pummel any incipient infection into submission.
SARS-CoV-2, however, uniquely blocks one cellular defense but activates the other, he and his colleagues reported in a study published last week in Cell. They studied healthy human lung cells growing in lab dishes, ferrets (which the virus infects easily), and lung cells from Covid-19 patients. In all three, they found that within three days of infection, the virus induces cells’ call-for-reinforcement genes to produce cytokines. But it blocks their call-to-arms genes — the interferons that dampen the virus’ replication.
The result is essentially no brakes on the virus’s replication, but a storm of inflammatory molecules in the lungs, which is what tenOever calls an “unique” and “aberrant” consequence of how SARS-CoV-2 manipulates the genome of its target.
In another new study, scientists in Japan last week identified how SARS-CoV-2 accomplishes that genetic manipulation. Its ORF3b gene produces a protein called a transcription factor that has “strong anti-interferon activity,” Kei Sato of the University of Tokyo and colleagues found — stronger than the original SARS virus or influenza viruses. The protein basically blocks the cell from recognizing that a virus is present, in a way that prevents interferon genes from being expressed.
In fact, the Icahn School team found no interferons in the lung cells of Covid-19 patients. Without interferons, tenOever said, “there is nothing to stop the virus from replicating and festering in the lungs forever.”
That causes lung cells to emit even more “call-for-reinforcement” genes, summoning more and more immune cells. Now the lungs have macrophages and neutrophils and other immune cells “everywhere,” tenOever said, causing such runaway inflammation “that you start having inflammation that induces more inflammation.”
At the same time, unchecked viral replication kills lung cells involved in oxygen exchange. “And suddenly you’re in the hospital in severe respiratory distress,” he said.
In elderly people, as well as those with diabetes, heart disease, and other underlying conditions, the call-to-arms part of the immune system is weaker than in younger, healthier people, even before the coronavirus arrives. That reduces even further the cells’ ability to knock down virus replication with interferons, and imbalances the immune system toward the dangerous inflammatory response.
The discovery that SARS-CoV-2 strongly suppresses infected cells’ production of interferons has raised an intriguing possibility: that taking interferons might prevent severe Covid-19 or even prevent it in the first place, said Vineet Menachery of the University of Texas Medical Branch.
In a study of human cells growing in lab dishes, described in a preprint (not peer-reviewed or published in a journal yet), he and his colleagues also found that SARS-CoV-2 “prevents the vast amount” of interferon genes from turning on. But when cells growing in lab dishes received the interferon IFN-1 before exposure to the coronavirus, “the virus has a difficult time replicating.”
After a few days, the amount of virus in infected but interferon-treated cells was 1,000- to 10,000-fold lower than in infected cells not pre-treated with interferon. (The original SARS virus, in contrast, is insensitive to interferon.)
Ending the pandemic and preventing its return is assumed to require an effective vaccine to prevent infectionand antiviral drugs such as remdesivir to treat the very sick, but the genetic studies suggest a third strategy: preventive drugs.
It’s possible that treatment with so-called type-1 interferon “could stop the virus before it could get established,” Menachery said.
Giving drugs to healthy people is always a dicey proposition, since all drugs have side effects — something considered less acceptable than when a drug is used to treat an illness. “Interferon treatment is rife with complications,” Menachery warned. The various interferons, which are prescribed for hepatitis, cancers, and many other diseases, can cause flu-like symptoms.
But the risk-benefit equation might shift, both for individuals and for society, if interferons or antivirals or other medications are shown to reduce the risk of developing serious Covid-19 or even make any infection nearly asymptomatic.
Interferon “would be warning the cells the virus is coming,” Menachery said, so such pretreatment might “allow treated cells to fend off the virus better and limit its spread.” Determining that will of course require clinical trials, which are underway.
Other related articles in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:
Structure-guided Drug Discovery: (1) The Coronavirus 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) enzyme (main protease) essential for proteolytic maturation of the virus and (2) viral protease, the RNA polymerase, the viral spike protein, a viral RNA as promising two targets for discovery of cleavage inhibitors of the viral spike polyprotein preventing the Coronavirus Virion the spread of infection
Predicting the Protein Structure of Coronavirus: Inhibition of Nsp15 can slow viral replication and Cryo-EM – Spike protein structure (experimentally verified) vs AI-predicted protein structures (not experimentally verified) of DeepMind (Parent: Google) aka AlphaFold
Curators: Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Glycobiology vs Proteomics: Glycobiologists Prespective in the effort to explain the origin, etiology and potential therapeutics for the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19).
Actemra, immunosuppressive which was designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis but also approved in 2017 to treat cytokine storms in cancer patients SAVED the sickest of all COVID-19 patients
The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) Partnership on May 18, 2020: Leadership of AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Evotec, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, KSQ Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vir. We also thank multiple NIH institutes (especially NIAID), the FDA, BARDA, CDC, the European Medicines Agency, the Department of Defense, the VA, and the Foundation for NIH
Tweets & Retweets 2020 World Medical Innovation Forum – COVID-19, AI and the Future of Medicine, Featuring Harvard and Industry Leader Insights – MGH & BWH, Virtual Event: Monday, May 11, 8:15 a.m. – 5:15 p.m. ET
A Series of Recently Published Papers Report the Development of SARS-CoV2 Neutralizing Antibodies and Passive Immunity toward COVID19
Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Passive Immunity and Treatment of Infectious Diseases
The ability of one person to pass on immunity to another person (passive immunity) is one of the chief methods we develop immunity to many antigens. For instance, maternal antibodies are passed to the offspring in the neonatal setting as well as in a mother’s milk during breast feeding. In the clinical setting this is achieved by transferring antibodies from one patient who has been exposed to an antigen (like a virus) to the another individual. However, the process of purifying the most efficacious antibody as well as its mass production is limiting due to its complexity and cost and can be prohibitively long delay during a pandemic outbreak, when therapies are few and needed immediately. Regardless, the benefits of developing neutralizing antibodies to confer passive immunity versus development of a vaccine are evident, as the former takes considerable less time than development of a safe and effective vaccine. For a good review on the development and use of neutralizing antibodies and the use of passive immunity to treat infectious diseases please read the following review:
Antibodies have been used for over a century in the prevention and treatment of infectious disease. They are used most commonly for the prevention of measles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, varicella, rabies, and vaccinia. Although their use in the treatment of bacterial infection has largely been supplanted by antibiotics, antibodies remain a critical component of the treatment of diptheria, tetanus, and botulism. High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin can be used to treat certain viral infections in immunocompromised patients (e.g., cytomegalovirus, parvovirus B19, and enterovirus infections). Antibodies may also be of value in toxic shock syndrome, Ebola virus, and refractory staphylococcal infections. Palivizumab, the first monoclonal antibody licensed (in 1998) for an infectious disease, can prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in high-risk infants. The development and use of additional monoclonal antibodies to key epitopes of microbial pathogens may further define protective humoral responses and lead to new approaches for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.
TABLE 1
Summary of the efficacy of antibody in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases
A Great Explanation of Active versus Passive Immunity by Dr. John Campbell, one of the pioneers in the field of immunology:Antibodies have been used for over a century in the prevention and treatment of infectious disease. They are used most commonly for the prevention of measles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, varicella, rabies, and vaccinia. Although their use in the treatment of bacterial infection has largely been supplanted by antibiotics, antibodies remain a critical component of the treatment of diptheria, tetanus, and botulism. High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin can be used to treat certain viral infections in immunocompromised patients (e.g., cytomegalovirus, parvovirus B19, and enterovirus infections). Antibodies may also be of value in toxic shock syndrome, Ebola virus, and refractory staphylococcal infections. Palivizumab, the first monoclonal antibody licensed (in 1998) for an infectious disease, can prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in high-risk infants. The development and use of additional monoclonal antibodies to key epitopes of microbial pathogens may further define protective humoral responses and lead to new approaches for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.
However, developing successful neutralizing antibodies can still be difficult but with the latest monoclonal antibody technology, as highlighted by the following papers, this process has made much more efficient. In addition, it is not feasable to isolate antibodies from the plasma of covalescent patients in a scale that is needed for a worldwide outbreak.
When fighting off foreign invaders, our bodies make antibodies precisely produced for the task. The reason vaccines offer such long-lasting protection is they train the immune system to identify a pathogen, so immune cells remember and are ready to attack the virus when it appears. Monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus would take the place of the ones our bodies might produce to fight the disease. The manufactured antibodies would be infused into the body to either tamp down an existing infection, or to protect someone who has been exposed to the virus. However, these drugs are synthetic versions of the convalescent plasma treatments that rely on antibodies from people who have recovered from infection. But the engineered versions are easier to scale because they’re manufactured in rats, rather than from plasma donors.
The following papers represent the latest published work on development of therapeutic and prophylactic neutralizing antibodies to the coronavirus SARS-CoV2
1. Cross-neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 by a human monoclonal SARS-CoV antibody.
SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus responsible for the current COVID-19 pandemic that has resulted in more than 3.7 million infections and 260,000 deaths as of 6 May 20201,2. Vaccine and therapeutic discovery efforts are paramount to curb the pandemic spread of this zoonotic virus. The SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) glycoprotein promotes entry into host cells and is the main target of neutralizing antibodies. Here we describe multiple monoclonal antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 S identified from memory B cells of an individual who was infected with SARS-CoV in 2003. One antibody, named S309, potently neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV pseudoviruses as well as authentic SARS-CoV-2 by engaging the S receptor-binding domain. Using cryo-electron microscopy and binding assays, we show that S309 recognizes a glycan-containing epitope that is conserved within the sarbecovirus subgenus, without competing with receptor attachment. Antibody cocktails including S309 along with other antibodies identified here further enhanced SARS-CoV-2 neutralization and may limit the emergence of neutralization-escape mutants. These results pave the way for using S309- and S309-containing antibody cocktails for prophylaxis in individuals at high risk of exposure or as a post-exposure therapy to limit or treat severe disease.
2. Potent neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 identified by high-throughput single-cell sequencing of convalescent patients’ B cells
The COVID-19 pandemic urgently needs therapeutic and prophylactic interventions. Here we report the rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies by high-throughput single-cell RNA and VDJ sequencing of antigen-enriched B cells from 60 convalescent patients. From 8,558 antigen-binding IgG1+ clonotypes, 14 potent neutralizing antibodies were identified with the most potent one, BD-368-2, exhibiting an IC50 of 1.2 ng/mL and 15 ng/mL against pseudotyped and authentic SARS-CoV-2, respectively. BD-368-2 also displayed strong therapeutic and prophylactic efficacy in SARS-CoV-2-infected hACE2-transgenic mice. Additionally, the 3.8Å Cryo-EM structure of a neutralizing antibody in complex with the spike-ectodomain trimer revealed the antibody’s epitope overlaps with the ACE2 binding site. Moreover, we demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies could be directly selected based on similarities of their predicted CDR3H structures to those of SARS-CoV neutralizing antibodies. Altogether, we showed that human neutralizing antibodies could be efficiently discovered by high-throughput single B-cell sequencing in response to pandemic infectious diseases.
3. A human monoclonal antibody blocking SARS-CoV-2 infection
The emergence of the novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China has caused a worldwide epidemic of respiratory disease (COVID-19). Vaccines and targeted therapeutics for treatment of this disease are currently lacking. Here we report a human monoclonal antibody that neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 (and SARS-CoV) in cell culture. This cross-neutralizing antibody targets a communal epitope on these viruses and may offer potential for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
Extra References on Development of Neutralizing antibodies for COVID19 {Sars-CoV2} published this year (2020) [1-4]
Fan P, Chi X, Liu G, Zhang G, Chen Z, Liu Y, Fang T, Li J, Banadyga L, He S et al: Potent neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against Ebola virus isolated from vaccinated donors. mAbs 2020, 12(1):1742457.
Dussupt V, Sankhala RS, Gromowski GD, Donofrio G, De La Barrera RA, Larocca RA, Zaky W, Mendez-Rivera L, Choe M, Davidson E et al: Potent Zika and dengue cross-neutralizing antibodies induced by Zika vaccination in a dengue-experienced donor. Nature medicine 2020, 26(2):228-235.
Young CL, Lyons AC, Hsu WW, Vanlandingham DL, Park SL, Bilyeu AN, Ayers VB, Hettenbach SM, Zelenka AM, Cool KR et al: Protection of swine by potent neutralizing anti-Japanese encephalitis virus monoclonal antibodies derived from vaccination. Antiviral research 2020, 174:104675.
Effective humoral immune responses to infection and immunization are defined by high-affinity antibodies generated as a result of B cell differentiation and selection that occurs within germinal centers (GC). Within the GC, B cells undergo affinity maturation, an iterative and competitive process wherein B cells mutate their immunoglobulin genes (somatic hypermutation) and undergo clonal selection by competing for T cell help. Balancing the decision to remain within the GC and continue participating in affinity maturation or to exit the GC as a plasma cell (PC) or memory B cell (MBC) is critical for achieving optimal antibody avidity, antibody quantity, and establishing immunological memory in response to immunization or infection. Humoral immune responses during chronic infections are often dysregulated and characterized by hypergammaglobulinemia, decreased affinity maturation, and delayed development of neutralizing antibodies. Previous studies have suggested that poor antibody quality is in part due to deletion of B cells prior to establishment of the GC response.
In fact the impact of chronic infections on B cell fate decisions in the GC remains poorly understood. To address this question, researchers used single-cell transcriptional profiling of virus-specific GC B cells to test the hypothesis that chronic viral infection disrupted GC B cell fate decisions leading to suboptimal humoral immunity. These studies revealed a critical GC differentiation checkpoint that is disrupted by chronic infection, specifically at the point of dark zone re-entry. During chronic viral infection, virus-specific GC B cells were shunted towards terminal plasma cell (PC) or memory B cell (MBC) fates at the expense of continued participation in the GC. Early GC exit was associated with decreased B cell mutational burden and antibody quality. Persisting antigen and inflammation independently drove facets of dysregulation, with a key role for inflammation in directing premature terminal GC B cell differentiation and GC exit. Thus, the present research defines GC defects during chronic viral infection and identify a critical GC checkpoint that is short-circuited, preventing optimal maturation of humoral immunity.
Together, these studies identify a key GC B cell differentiation checkpoint that is dysregulated during chronic infection. Further, it was found that the chronic inflammatory environment, rather than persistent antigen, is sufficient to drive altered GC B cell differentiation during chronic infection even against unrelated antigens. However, the data also indicate that inflammatory circuits are likely linked to perception of antigen stimulation. Nevertheless, this study reveals a B cell-intrinsic program of transcriptional skewing in chronic viral infection that results in shunting out of the cyclic GC B cell process and early GC exit with consequences for antibody quality and hypergammaglobulinemia. These findings have implications for vaccination in individuals with pre-existing chronic infections where antibody responses are often ineffective and suggest that modulation of inflammatory pathways may be therapeutically useful to overcome impaired humoral immunity and foster affinity maturation during chronic viral infections.
4.1.8 Newly Found Functions of B Cell, 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
The importance of B cells to human health is more than what is already known. Vaccines capable of eradicating disease activate B cells, cancer checkpoint blockade therapies are produced using B cells, and B cell deficiencies have devastating impacts. B cells have been a subject of fascination since at least the 1800s. The notion of a humoral branch to immunity emerged from the work of and contemporaries studying B cells in the early 1900s.
Efforts to understand how we could make antibodies from B cells against almost any foreign surface while usually avoiding making them against self, led to Burnet’s clonal selection theory. This was followed by the molecular definition of how a diversity of immunoglobulins can arise by gene rearrangement in developing B cells. Recombination activating gene (RAG)-dependent processes of V-(D)-J rearrangement of immunoglobulin (Ig) gene segments in developing B cells are now known to be able to generate an enormous amount of antibody diversity (theoretically at least 1016 possible variants).
With so much already known, B cell biology might be considered ‘‘done’’ with only incremental advances still to be made, but instead, there is great activity in the field today with numerous major challenges that remain. For example, efforts are underway to develop vaccines that induce broadly neutralizing antibody responses, to understand how autoantigen- and allergen-reactive antibodies arise, and to harness B cell-depletion therapies to correct non-autoantibody-mediated diseases, making it evident that there is still an enormous amount we do not know about B cells and much work to be done.
Multiple self-tolerance checkpoints exist to remove autoreactive specificities from the B cell repertoire or to limit the ability of such cells to secrete autoantigen-binding antibody. These include receptor editing and deletion in immature B cells, competitive elimination of chronically autoantigen binding B cells in the periphery, and a state of anergy that disfavors PC (plasma cell) differentiation. Autoantibody production can occur due to failures in these checkpoints or in T cell self-tolerance mechanisms. Variants in multiple genes are implicated in increasing the likelihood of checkpoint failure and of autoantibody production occurring.
Autoantibodies are pathogenic in a number of human diseases including SLE (Systemic lupus erythematosus), pemphigus vulgaris, Grave’s disease, and myasthenia gravis. B cell depletion therapy using anti-CD20 antibody has been protective in some of these diseases such as pemphigus vulgaris, but not others such as SLE and this appears to reflect the contribution of SLPC (Short lived plasma cells) versus LLPC (Long lived plasma cells) to autoantibody production and the inability of even prolonged anti-CD20 treatment to eliminate the later. These clinical findings have added to the importance of understanding what factors drive SLPC versus LLPC development and what the requirements are to support LLPCs.
B cell depletion therapy has also been efficacious in several other autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis (MS), type 1 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While the potential contributions of autoantibodies to the pathology of these diseases are still being explored, autoantigen presentation has been posited as another mechanism for B cell disease-promoting activity.
In addition to autoimmunity, B cells play an important role in allergic diseases. IgE antibodies specific for allergen components sensitize mast cells and basophils for rapid degranulation in response to allergen exposures at various sites, such as in the intestine (food allergy), nose (allergic rhinitis), and lung (allergic asthma). IgE production may thus be favored under conditions that induce weak B cell responses and minimal GC (Germinal center) activity, thereby enabling IgE+ B cells and/or PCs to avoid being outcompeted by IgG+ cells. Aside from IgE antibodies, B cells may also contribute to allergic inflammation through their interactions with T cells.
B cells have also emerged as an important source of the immunosuppressive cytokine IL-10. Mouse studies revealed that B cell-derived IL-10 can promote recovery from EAE (Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis) and can be protective in models of RA and type 1 diabetes. Moreover, IL-10 production from B cells restrains T cell responses during some viral and bacterial infections. These findings indicate that the influence of B cells on the cytokine milieu will be context dependent.
The presence of B cells in a variety of solid tumor types, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and melanoma, has been associated in some studies with a positive prognosis. The mechanism involved is unclear but could include antigen presentation to CD4 and CD8 T cells, antibody production and subsequent enhancement of presentation, or by promoting tertiary lymphoid tissue formation and local T cell accumulation. It is also noteworthy that B cells frequently make antibody responses to cancer antigens and this has led to efforts to use antibodies from cancer patients as biomarkers of disease and to identify immunotherapy targets.
Malignancies of B cells themselves are a common form of hematopoietic cancer. This predilection arises because the gene modifications that B cells undergo during development and in immune responses are not perfect in their fidelity, and antibody responses require extensive B cell proliferation. The study of B cell lymphomas and their associated genetic derangements continues to be illuminating about requirements for normal B cell differentiation and signaling while also leading to the development of targeted therapies.
Overall this study attempted to capture some of the advances in the understanding of B cell biology that have occurred since the turn of the century. These include important steps forward in understanding how B cells encounter antigens, the co-stimulatory and cytokine requirements for their proliferation and differentiation, and how properties of the B cell receptor, the antigen, and helper T cells influence B cell responses. Many advances continue to transform the field including the impact of deep sequencing technologies on understanding B cell repertoires, the IgA-inducing microbiome, and the genetic defects in humans that compromise or exaggerate B cell responses or give rise to B cell malignancies.
Other advances that are providing insight include:
single-cell approaches to define B cell heterogeneity,
glycomic approaches to study effector sugars on antibodies,
new methods to study human B cell responses including CRISPR-based manipulation, and
the use of systems biology to study changes at the whole organism level.
With the recognition that B cells and antibodies are involved in most types of immune response and the realization that inflammatory processes contribute to a wider range of diseases than previously believed, including, for example, metabolic syndrome and neurodegeneration, it is expected that further
basic research-driven discovery about B cell biology will lead to more and improved approaches to maintain health and fight disease in the future.
Immuno-editing can be a constant defense in the cancer landscape, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 1: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.
There are many considerations in the cancer immunoediting landscape of defense and regulation in the cancer hallmark biology. The cancer hallmark biology in concert with key controls of the HLA compatibility affinity mechanisms are pivotal in architecting a unique patient-centric therapeutic application. Selection of random immune products including neoantigens, antigens, antibodies and other vital immune elements creates a high level of uncertainty and risk of undesirable immune reactions. Immunoediting is a constant process. The human innate and adaptive forces can either trigger favorable or unfavorable immunoediting features. Cancer is a multi-disease entity. There are multi-factorial initiators in a certain disease process. Namely, environmental exposures, viral and / or microbiome exposure disequilibrium, direct harm to DNA, poor immune adaptability, inherent risk and an individual’s own vibration rhythm in life.
When a human single cell is crippled (Deranged DNA) with mixed up molecular behavior that is the initiator of the problem. A once normal cell now transitioned into full threatening molecular time bomb. In the modeling and creation of a tumor it all begins with the singular molecular crisis and crippling of a normal human cell. At this point it is either chop suey (mixed bit responses) or a productive defensive and regulation response and posture of the immune system. Mixed bits of normal DNA, cancer-laden DNA, circulating tumor DNA, circulating normal cells, circulating tumor cells, circulating immune defense cells, circulating immune inflammatory cells forming a moiety of normal and a moiety of mess. The challenge is to scavenge the mess and amplify the normal.
Immunoediting is a primary push-button feature that is definitely required to be hit when it comes to initiating immune defenses against cancer and an adaptation in favor of regression. As mentioned before that the tumor microenvironment is a “mixed bit” moiety, which includes elements of the immune system that can defend against circulating cancer cells and tumor growth. Personalized (Precision-Based) cancer vaccines must become the primary form of treatment in this case. Current treatment regimens in conventional therapy destroy immune defenses and regulation and create more serious complications observed in tumor progression, metastasis and survival. Commonly resistance to chemotherapeutic agents is observed. These personalized treatments will be developed in concert with cancer hallmark analytics and immunocentrics affinity and selection mapping. This mapping will demonstrate molecular pathway interface and HLA compatibility and adaptation with patientcentricity.
Immunotherapy may help in glioblastoma survival, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 1: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.
Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults and is associated with poor survival. But, in a glimmer of hope, a recent study found that a drug designed to unleash the immune system helped some patients live longer. Glioblastoma powerfully suppresses the immune system, both at the site of the cancer and throughout the body, which has made it difficult to find effective treatments. Such tumors are complex and differ widely in their behavior and characteristics.
A small randomized, multi-institution clinical trial was conducted and led by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles involved patients who had a recurrence of glioblastoma, the most common central nervous system cancer. The aim was to evaluate immune responses and survival following neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab (checkpoint inhibitor) in 35 patients with recurrent, surgically resectable glioblastoma. Patients who were randomized to receive neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, with continued adjuvant therapy following surgery, had significantly extended overall survival compared to patients that were randomized to receive adjuvant, post-surgical programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade alone.
Neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade was associated with upregulation of T cell– and interferon-γ-related gene expression, but downregulation of cell-cycle-related gene expression within the tumor, which was not seen in patients that received adjuvant therapy alone. Focal induction of programmed death-ligand 1 in the tumor microenvironment, enhanced clonal expansion of T cells, decreased PD-1 expression on peripheral blood T cells and a decreasing monocytic population was observed more frequently in the neoadjuvant group than in patients treated only in the adjuvant setting. These findings suggest that the neoadjuvant administration of PD-1 blockade enhanced both the local and systemic antitumor immune response and may represent a more efficacious approach to the treatment of this uniformly lethal brain tumor.
Immunotherapy has not proved to be effective against glioblastoma. This small clinical trial explored the effect of PD-1 blockade on recurrent glioblastoma in relation to the timing of administration. A total of 35 patients undergoing resection of recurrent disease were randomized to either neoadjuvant or adjuvant pembrolizumab, and surgical specimens were compared between the two groups. Interestingly, the tumoral gene expression signature varied between the two groups, such that those who received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab displayed an INF-γ gene signature suggestive of T-cell activation as well as suppression of cell-cycle signaling, possibly consistent with growth arrest. Although the study was not powered for efficacy, the group found an increase in overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant pembrolizumab compared with adjuvant pembrolizumab of 13.7 months versus 7.5 months, respectively.
In this small pilot study, neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade followed by surgical resection was associated with intratumoral T-cell activation and inhibition of tumor growth as well as longer survival. How the drug works in glioblastoma has not been totally established. The researchers speculated that giving the drug before surgery prompted T-cells within the tumor, which had been impaired, to attack the cancer and extend lives. The drug didn’t spur such anti-cancer activity after the surgery because those T-cells were removed along with the tumor. The results are very important and very promising but would need to be validated in much larger trials.
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa30489-X&id=fx1.jpg){kind=link}