Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Interviews with Scientific Leaders’ Category


2017 Nobel prize in chemistry given to Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank, and Richard Henderson  for developing cryo-electron microscopy

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Here’s what the images that just won the Nobel prize in chemistry look like and why they’re so transformative

IMAGE SOURCE
Over the last few years, researchers have published atomic structures of numerous complicated protein complexes. a. A protein complex that governs the circadian rhythm. b. A sensor of the type that reads pressure changes in the ear and allows us to hear. c. The Zika virus.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
SOURCE

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2017

4 October 2017

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2017 to

Jacques Dubochet
University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Joachim Frank
Columbia University, New York, USA

and

Richard Henderson
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK

“for developing cryo-electron microscopy for the high-resolution structure determination of biomolecules in solution”

 

Cool microscope technology revolutionises biochemistry

We may soon have detailed images of life’s complex machineries in atomic resolution. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2017 is awarded to Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank and Richard Henderson for the development of cryo-electron microscopy, which both simplifies and improves the imaging of biomolecules. This method has moved biochemistry into a new era.

A picture is a key to understanding. Scientific breakthroughs often build upon the successful visualisation of objects invisible to the human eye. However, biochemical maps have long been filled with blank spaces because the available technology has had difficulty generating images of much of life’s molecular machinery. Cryo-electron microscopy changes all of this. Researchers can now freeze biomolecules mid-movement and visualise processes they have never previously seen, which is decisive for both the basic understanding of life’s chemistry and for the development of pharmaceuticals.

Electron microscopes were long believed to only be suitable for imaging dead matter, because the powerful electron beam destroys biological material. But in 1990, Richard Henderson succeeded in using an electron microscope to generate a three-dimensional image of a protein at atomic resolution. This breakthrough proved the technology’s potential.

Joachim Frank made the technology generally applicable. Between 1975 and 1986 he developed an image processing method in which the electron microscope’s fuzzy twodimensional images are analysed and merged to reveal a sharp three-dimensional structure.

Jacques Dubochet added water to electron microscopy. Liquid water evaporates in the electron microscope’s vacuum, which makes the biomolecules collapse. In the early 1980s, Dubochet succeeded in vitrifying water – he cooled water so rapidly that it solidified in its liquid form around a biological sample, allowing the biomolecules to retain their natural shape even in a vacuum.

Following these discoveries, the electron microscope’s every nut and bolt have been optimised. The desired atomic resolution was reached in 2013, and researchers can now routinely produce three-dimensional structures of biomolecules. In the past few years, scientific literature has been filled with images of everything from proteins that cause antibiotic resistance, to the surface of the Zika virus. Biochemistry is now facing an explosive development and is all set for an exciting future.

Read more about this year’s prize

Popular Information
Pdf 2.7 MB

Scientific Background
Pdf 837 Kb

To read the text you need Acrobat Reader.

Image – 3D structures (pdf 1.4 MB)
© Johan Jarnestad/The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Image – Blobology (pdf 8.5 MB)
© Martin Högbom/The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Image – Dubochet’s preparation method (948 kB)
© Johan Jarnestad/The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Image – Frank’s image analysis (pdf 1 MB)
© Johan Jarnestad/The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

 


Jacques Dubochet, born 1942 in Aigle, Switzerland. Ph.D. 1973, University of Geneva and University of Basel, Switzerland. Honorary Professor of Biophysics, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
www.unil.ch/dee/en/home/menuinst/people/honorary-professors/prof-jacques-dubochet.html

Joachim Frank, born 1940 in Siegen, Germany. Ph.D. 1970, Technical University of Munich, Germany. Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, USA.
http://franklab.cpmc.columbia.edu/franklab/

Richard Henderson, born 1945 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Ph.D. 1969, Cambridge University, UK. Programme Leader, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK.
www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/rh15/

Prize amount: 9 million Swedish krona, to be shared equally between the Laureates.
Further information: http://www.kva.se and http://nobelprize.org

SOURCE

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2017/press.html

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


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

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

This article has the following structure:

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

 

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

 

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

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

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

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

 

ABOUT Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma

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

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

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

 

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

“Chemotherapy will become just a bad memory”

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Israeli investors profit from $11.9b Kite acquisition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »


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

 

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Press Release

2017-10-02

The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award

the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

jointly to

Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young

for their discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm

READ the Summary

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2017/press.html

 

Jeffrey C. Hall was born 1945 in New York, USA. He received his doctoral degree in 1971 at the University of Washington in Seattle and was a postdoctoral fellow at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena from 1971 to 1973. He joined the faculty at Brandeis University in Waltham in 1974. In 2002, he became associated with University of Maine.

Michael Rosbash was born in 1944 in Kansas City, USA. He received his doctoral degree in 1970 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. During the following three years, he was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Since 1974, he has been on faculty at Brandeis University in Waltham, USA.

Michael W. Young was born in 1949 in Miami, USA. He received his doctoral degree at the University of Texas in Austin in 1975. Between 1975 and 1977, he was a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University in Palo Alto. From 1978, he has been on faculty at the Rockefeller University in New York.

 

Key publications

Zehring, W.A., Wheeler, D.A., Reddy, P., Konopka, R.J., Kyriacou, C.P., Rosbash, M., and Hall, J.C. (1984). P-element transformation with period locus DNA restores rhythmicity to mutant, arrhythmic Drosophila melanogaster. Cell 39, 369–376.

Bargiello, T.A., Jackson, F.R., and Young, M.W. (1984). Restoration of circadian behavioural rhythms by gene transfer in Drosophila. Nature 312, 752–754.

Siwicki, K.K., Eastman, C., Petersen, G., Rosbash, M., and Hall, J.C. (1988). Antibodies to the period gene product of Drosophila reveal diverse tissue distribution and rhythmic changes in the visual system. Neuron 1, 141–150.

Hardin, P.E., Hall, J.C., and Rosbash, M. (1990). Feedback of the Drosophila period gene product on circadian cycling of its messenger RNA levels. Nature 343, 536–540.

Liu, X., Zwiebel, L.J., Hinton, D., Benzer, S., Hall, J.C., and Rosbash, M. (1992). The period gene encodes a predominantly nuclear protein in adult Drosophila. J Neurosci 12, 2735–2744.

Vosshall, L.B., Price, J.L., Sehgal, A., Saez, L., and Young, M.W. (1994). Block in nuclear localization of period protein by a second clock mutation, timeless. Science 263, 1606–1609.

Price, J.L., Blau, J., Rothenfluh, A., Abodeely, M., Kloss, B., and Young, M.W. (1998). double-time is a novel Drosophila clock gene that regulates PERIOD protein accumulation. Cell 94, 83–95.

Keeping time on our human physiology

The biological clock is involved in many aspects of our complex physiology. We now know that all multicellular organisms, including humans, utilize a similar mechanism to control circadian rhythms. A large proportion of our genes are regulated by the biological clock and, consequently, a carefully calibrated circadian rhythm adapts our physiology to the different phases of the day (Figure 3). Since the seminal discoveries by the three laureates, circadian biology has developed into a vast and highly dynamic research field, with implications for our health and wellbeing.

The circadian clock

Figure 3. The circadian clock anticipates and adapts our physiology to the different phases of the day. Our biological clock helps to regulate sleep patterns, feeding behavior, hormone release, blood pressure, and body temperature.

SOURCE

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2017/press.html

 

Medicine Nobel awarded for work on circadian clocks, Jeffrey Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael Young unpicked molecular workings of cells’ daily rhythms.

Ewen CallawayHeidi Ledford

02 October 2017

https://www.nature.com/news/medicine-nobel-awarded-for-work-on-circadian-clocks-1.22736?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20171002

Other Related Research 

Charles Weitz, Ph.D., M.D.
Robert Henry Pfeiffer Professor of Neurobiology

Mammalian Circadian Clocks

Circadian clocks are molecular oscillators with ~24-hour periods that drive daily biological rhythms.  Such clocks are found in all of the major branches of life, and they likely represent ancient timekeeping systems important for predicting daily environmental cycles on our rotating planet.  In mammals, circadian clocks are present in most if not all cells. These distributed clocks control a myriad of processes, in aggregate creating coherent 24-hour programs of physiology and behavior.

A picture of how circadian clocks are built has emerged in the last two decades.  The core mechanism is a transcriptional feedback loop, wherein the protein products of several clock genes build the molecular machinery to inhibit the transcription factor responsible for their own production.  The molecular components of circadian clocks are conserved from insects to humans.

The Weitz lab uses molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, and structural biology to investigate the mammalian circadian clock.  The focus of our efforts at present is to understand the circadian clock in terms of the integrated functions of its several multi-protein machines.  This effort is principally based on the purification of endogenous circadian clock protein complexes from mouse tissues and their biochemical analysis and structural study by cryo-electron microscopy.

Fig. 1.  Class-average electron microscopy images of the mouse nuclear PER complex, a core circadian clock machine.  It is a 1.9-MDa assembly of about thirty proteins that appears as a quasi-spherical, beaded particle of 40-nm diameter. Our current work provides an initial low-resolution view of the structural organization of endogenous clock machinery from a eukaryote.  We aim to obtain high-resolution structures.

Selected papers:

Duong HA, Robles MS, Knutti K, Weitz CJ.  A molecular mechanism for circadian clock negative feedback. Science  332, 1436-1439 (2011).

Padmanabhan K, Robles MS, Westerling T, Weitz CJ.  Feedback regulation of transcriptional termination by the mammalian circadian clock PERIOD complex. Science  337, 599-602 (2012).

Kim JY, Kwak PB, Weitz CJ. Specificity in circadian clock feedback from targeted reconstitution of the NuRD co-repressor.  Mol. Cell  56, 738-748 (2014).

Aryal RA, Kwak PB, Tamayo AG, Chiu PL, Walz T, Weitz CJ.  Macromolecular assemblies of the mammalian circadian clock.  Mol. Cell  (2017, in press).

SOURCE

http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/people/faculty/charles-weitz

Circadian Clock’s Inner Gears

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/circadian-clock%E2%80%99s-inner-gears?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hms-linkedin-general

Other related articles Published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal included the following: 

Search Keyword “Sleep” – 161 Scientific Articles

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/?s=Sleep

Search Keyword “Circadian” Rhythm

Ultra-Pure Melatonin Product Helps Maintain Sleep for Up to 7 Hours

Curator: Gail S. Thornton, M.A.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/06/11/ultra-pure-melatonin-product-helps-maintain-sleep-for-up-to-7-hours/

 

Alteration in Reduced Glutathione level in Red Blood Cells: Role of Melatonin

Author: Shilpa Chakrabarti, PhD

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/06/11/alteration-in-reduced-glutathione-level-in-red-blood-cells-role-of-melatonin/

 

Melatonin and its effect on acetylcholinesterase activity in erythrocytes

Author: S. Chakravarty, PhD

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/03/09/melatonin-and-its-effect-on-acetylcholinesterase-activity-in-erythrocytes/

 

Day and Night Variation in Melatonin Level affects Plasma Membrane Redox System in Red Blood Cells

Author: Shilpa Chakravarty, PhD

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/02/23/httpwww-ncbi-nlm-nih-govpubmed22561555/

 

Prolonged Wakefulness: Lack of Sufficient Duration of Sleep as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Diseases – – Indications for Cardiovascular Chrono-therapeutics

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/02/02/prolonged-wakefulness-lack-of-sufficient-duration-of-sleep-as-a-risk-factor-for-cardiovascular-diseases-indications-for-cardiovascular-chrono-therapeutics/

Read Full Post »


17th Annual EmTech @ Media Lab, MIT – November 7 – 8, 2017, Cambridge, MA – This Year’s Themes, Speakers and Agenda

MIT Media Lab
Building E14
75 Amherst Street 
(Corner of Ames and Amherst)

Themes:

  • Business Impact
  • Connectivity
  • Intelligent Machines
  • Rewriting Life
  • Sustainable Energy
  • Meet the Innovators Under 35

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, Boston

pharma_bi-background0238

will cover in REAL TIME

The 17th annual EmTech MIT – A Place of Inspiration, November 7 – 8, 2017, Cambridge, MA

In attendance, streaming LIVE using Social Media

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Editor-in-Chief

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

#emtechmit

 

https://events.technologyreview.com/emtech/17/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=press_list&utm_campaign=emtech2017&utm_term=conference&utm_content=press_credentials&discount=MEDIAM172B#section-about

AGENDA FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017

  • 8:00
    Registration & Breakfast
  • 9:00
    Opening Remarks
  • 9:15
    The State of AI
  • 9:45
    Meet the Innovators Under 35
  • 10:30
    Break & Networking
  • 11:00
    AI’s Next Leap Forward
  • 12:30
    Lunch & Networking
  • 2:00
    Adapting to the reality of climate change
  • 3:30
    Break & Networking
  • 4:00
    Meet the Innovators Under 35
  • 5:30
    Lemelson-MIT Prize Honors & Reception

AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2017

  • 8:00
    Registration & Breakfast
  • 9:00
    What is social media doing to society?
  • 10:30
    Break & Networking
  • 11:00
    Next-generation brain interfaces
  • 12:00
    Lunch & Networking
  • 1:30
    The Future of Work
  • 2:00
    A Look Ahead: Emerging Technologies at Work
  • 3:00
    Break & Networking
  • 3:30
    Meet the Innovators Under 35
  • 5:00
    2017 Innovator Under 35 Awards & Reception

Speakers

  • Viktor
    Adalsteinsson

    Group Leader, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Gene
    Berdichevsky

    CEO, Sila Nano

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Tracy
    Chou

    Founding Advisor, Project Include

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Adrienne
    Felt

    Software Engineer, Google

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Phillipa
    Gill

    Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Tallis
    Gomes

    CEO, Singu

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Kathy
    Gong

    CEO, WafaGames

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Ian
    Goodfellow

    Staff Research Scientist, Google Brain

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Yasmin
    Green

    Director of Research and Development, Jigsaw at Google

    Addressing Online Threats to Global Security

  • Kris
    Hammond

    Chief Scientist and Cofounder, Narrative Science

    AI’s Language Problem

  • Svenja
    Hinderer

    Scientist, Fraunhofer IGB

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Reid
    Hoffman

    Cofounder, LinkedIn; Partner, Greylock Partners

    The Future of Work

  • John
    Holdren

    Professor, Harvard University

    Climate Disruption: Technical Approaches to Mitigation and Adaptation

  • Joi
    Ito

    Director, MIT Media Lab

    The Future of Work

  • Mary Lou
    Jepsen

    Founder, Openwater

    Capturing Our Imagination: The Evolution of Brain-Machine Interfaces

  • David
    Keith

    Professor, Harvard University; Founder, Carbon Engineering

    The Growing Case for Geoengineering

  • Neha
    Narkhede

    Cofounder and CTO, Confluent

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Andrew
    Ng

    Founder, Deeplearning.ai; Adjunct Professor, Stanford University

    The State of AI

  • Tomaso
    Poggio

    Investigator, McGovern Institute; Eugene McDermott Professor, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT

    Understanding Intelligence

  • Olga
    Russakovsky

    Assistant Professor, Princeton University

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Michael
    Saliba

    Marie Curie Fellow, EPFL

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Gang
    Wang

    Chief Scientist, Alibaba

    2017 Innovator Under 35

  • Jianxiong
    Xiao

    Chief Executive Officer, AutoX, Inc.

    2017 Innovator Under 35

Read Full Post »


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

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

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

 

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

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

The 2017 award recipients are:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In their own words

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


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



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


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


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

Previous winners

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

Other past recipients include:

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

The Warren Alpert Foundation

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

Read Full Post »


Emerging STAR in Molecular Biology, Synthetic Virology and Genomics: Clodagh C. O’Shea: ChromEMT – Visualizing 3D chromatin structure

 

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

On 8/28/2017, I attend and covered in REAL TIME the CHI’s 5th Immune Oncology Summit – Oncolytic Virus Immunotherapy, August 28-29, 2017 Sheraton Boston Hotel | Boston, MA

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/08/28/live-828-chis-5th-immune-oncology-summit-oncolytic-virus-immunotherapy-august-28-29-2017-sheraton-boston-hotel-boston-ma/

 

I covered in REAL TIME this event and Clodagh C. O’Shea talk at the conference.

On that evening, I e-mailed my team that

“I believe that Clodagh C. O’Shea will get the Nobel Prizebefore CRISPR

 

11:00 Synthetic Virology: Modular Assembly of Designer Viruses for Cancer Therapy

Clodagh_OShea

Clodagh O’Shea, Ph.D., Howard Hughes Medical Institute Faculty Scholar; Associate Professor, William Scandling Developmental Chair, Molecular and Cell Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Design is the ultimate test of understanding. For oncolytic therapies to achieve their potential, we need a deep mechanistic understanding of virus and tumor biology together with the ability to confer new properties.

To achieve this, we have developed

  • combinatorial modular genome assembly (ADsembly) platforms,
  • orthogonal capsid functionalization technologies (RapAd) and
  • replication assays that have enabled the rational design, directed evolution, systematic assembly and screening of powerful new vectors and oncolytic viruses.

 

Clodagh O’Shea’s Talk In Real Time:

  • Future Cancer therapies to be sophisticated as Cancer is
  • Targer suppresor pathways (Rb/p53)
  • OV are safe their efficacy ishas been limited
  • MOA: Specify Oncolytic Viral Replication in Tumor cells Attenuate – lack of potency
  • SOLUTIONS: Assembly: Assmble personalized V Tx fro libraries of functional parts
  • Adenovirus – natural & clinical advantages
  • Strategy: Technology for Assmbling Novel Adenovirus Genomes using Modular Genomic Parts
  • E1 module: Inactives Rb & p53
  • core module:
  • E3 Module Immune Evasion Tissue targeting
  • E4 Module Activates E2F (transcription factor TDP1/2), PI3K
  • Adenovirus promoters for Cellular viral replication — Tumor Selective Replication: Novel Viruses Selective Replicate in RB/p16
  • Engineering Viruses to overcome tumor heterogeneity
  • Target multiple & Specific Tumor Cel Receptors – RapAd Technology allows Re-targeting anti Rapamycin – induced targeting of adenovirus
  • Virus Genome: FKBP-fusion FRB-Fiber
  • Engineer Adenovirus Caspids that prevent Liver uptake and Sequestration – Natural Ad5 Therapies 
  • Solution: AdSyn335 Lead candidat AdSyn335 Viruses targeting multiple cells
  • Engineering Mutations that enhanced potency
  • Novel Vector: Homes and targets
  • Genetically engineered PDX1 – for Pancreatic Cancer Stroma: Early and Late Stage
On Twitter:

Engineer Adenovirus Caspids prevent Liver uptake and Sequestration – Natural Ad5 Therapies C. O’Shea, HHDI

Scientist’s Profile: Clodagh C. O’Shea

http://www.salk.edu/scientist/clodagh-oshea/

EDUCATION

BS, Biochemistry and Microbiology, University College Cork, Ireland
PhD, Imperial College London/Imperial Cancer Research Fund, U.K.
Postdoctoral Fellow, UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, U.S.A

VIDEOS

http://www.salk.edu/scientist/clodagh-oshea/videos/

O’Shea Lab @Salk

http://oshea.salk.edu/

AWARDS & HONORS

  • 2016 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Faculty Scholar
  • 2014 W. M. Keck Medical Research Program Award
  • 2014 Rose Hills Fellow
  • 2011Science/NSF International Science & Visualization Challenge, People’s Choice
  • 2011 Anna Fuller Award for Cancer Research
  • 2010, 2011, 2012 Kavli Frontiers Fellow, National Academy of Sciences
  • 2009 Sontag Distinguished Scientist Award
  • 2009 American Cancer Society Research Scholar Award
  • 2008 ACGT Young Investigator Award for Cancer Gene Therapy
  • 2008 Arnold and Mabel Beckman Young Investigator Award
  • 2008 William Scandling Assistant Professor, Developmental Chair
  • 2007 Emerald Foundation Schola

READ 

Clodagh C. O’Shea: ChromEMT: Visualizing 3D chromatin structure and compaction in interphase and mitotic cells | Science

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6349/eaag0025

and 

https://www.readbyqxmd.com/keyword/93030

Clodagh C. O’Shea

In Press

Jul 27, 2017 – Salk scientists solve longstanding biological mystery of DNA organization

Sep 22, 2016 – Clodagh O’Shea named HHMI Faculty Scholar for groundbreaking work in designing synthetic viruses to destroy cancer

Oct 05, 2015 – Clodagh O’Shea awarded $3 million to unlock the “black box” of the nucleus

Aug 27, 2015 – The DNA damage response goes viral: a way in for new cancer treatments

Apr 12, 2013 – Salk Institute promotes three top scientists

Oct 16, 2012 – Cold viruses point the way to new cancer therapies

Aug 25, 2010 – Use the common cold virus to target and disrupt cancer cells?

Oct 22, 2009 – Salk scientist receives The Sontag Foundation’s Distinguished Scientist Award

May 15, 2008 – Salk scientist wins 2008 Beckman Young Investigator Award

Mar 24, 2008 – Salk scientist wins 2007 Young Investigator’s Award in Gene Therapy for Cancer

Read Full Post »


Gerald D Aurbach Award for Outstanding Translational Research

 

Reporter and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Supported by the Gerald D. Aurbach Memorial Fund — Gerald D Aurbach Award for Outstanding Translational Research in the name of Gerald D. Aurbach, MD, the Endocrine Society’s 68th president, was a renowned researcher, mentor, and clinician, and his work revolutionized the understanding of bone metabolism and calcium homeostasis.

 

Past Award Recipients
Select Year
2017
2016
2015
By year:

Eligibility Criteria for Gerald D Aurbach Award for Outstanding Translational Research

  • This award is not limited to members of the Endocrine Society

Application Process

Updates to existing nominations must be emailed to laureate@endocrine.org.

New nominations must be submitted by the primary nominator who is responsible for collecting and merging supporting documents in a single document (PDF or Word) in the order listed below:

  1. 300-word citation (will be published as-is in Endocrine News if the nominee is selected)
  2. Letter of Support (1 page each, no more than 2)
  3. List of 10 Most Significant Publications
  4. CV (abbreviated versions will not be accepted)

SOURCE

https://www.endocrine.org/awards/laureate-awards/gerald-d-aurbach-award-for-outstanding-translational-research

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »