Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘insertional mutagenesis’


NIH Considers Guidelines for CAR-T therapy: Report from Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

In the mid to late 1970’s a public debate (and related hysteria) had emerged surrounding two emerging advances in recombinant DNA technology;

  1. the development of vectors useful for cloning pieces of DNA (the first vector named pBR322) and
  2. the discovery of bacterial strains useful in propagating such vectors

As discussed by D. S, Fredrickson of NIH’s Dept. of Education and Welfare in his historical review” A HISTORY OF THE RECOMBINANT DNA GUIDELINES IN THE UNITED STATES” this international concern of the biological safety issues of this new molecular biology tool led the National Institute of Health to coordinate a committee (the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee) to develop guidelines for the ethical use, safe development, and safe handling of such vectors and host bacterium. The first conversations started in 1974 and, by 1978, initial guidelines had been developed. In fact, as Dr. Fredrickson notes, public relief was voiced even by religious organizations (who had the greatest ethical concerns)

On December 16, 1978, a telegram purporting to be from the Vatican was hand delivered to the office of Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education,

and Welfare. “Habemus regimen recombinatum,” it proclaimed, in celebration of the

end of a long struggle to revise the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving

Recombinant DNA Molecules

The overall Committee resulted in guidelines (2013 version) which assured the worldwide community that

  • organisms used in such procedures would have limited pathogenicity in humans
  • vectors would be developed in a manner which would eliminate their ability to replicate in humans and have defined antibiotic sensitivity

So great was the success and acceptance of this committee and guidelines, the NIH felt the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee should meet regularly to discuss and develop ethical guidelines and clinical regulations concerning DNA-based therapeutics and technologies.

A PowerPoint Slideshow: Introduction to NIH OBA and the History of Recombinant DNA Oversight can be viewed at the following link:

http://www.powershow.com/view1/e1703-ZDc1Z/Introduction_to_NIH_OBA_and_the_History_of_Recombinant_DNA_Oversight_powerpoint_ppt_presentation

Please see the following link for a video discussion between Dr. Paul Berg, who pioneered DNA recombinant technology, and Dr. James Watson (Commemorating 50 Years of DNA Science):

http://media.hhmi.org/interviews/berg_watson.html

The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee has met numerous times to discuss new DNA-based technologies and their biosafety and clinical implication including:

A recent Symposium was held in the summer of 2010 to discuss ethical and safety concerns and discuss potential clinical guidelines for use of an emerging immunotherapy technology, the Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells (CART), which at that time had just been started to be used in clinical trials.

Considerations for the Clinical Application of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells: Observations from a Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Symposium Held June 15, 2010[1]

Contributors to the Symposium discussing opinions regarding CAR-T protocol design included some of the prominent members in the field including:

Drs. Hildegund C.J. Ertl, John Zaia, Steven A. Rosenberg, Carl H. June, Gianpietro Dotti, Jeffrey Kahn, Laurence J. N. Cooper, Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, And Scott E. Strome.

The discussions from the Symposium, reported in Cancer Research[1]. were presented in three parts:

  1. Summary of the Evolution of the CAR therapy
  2. Points for Future Consideration including adverse event reporting
  3. Considerations for Design and Implementation of Trials including mitigating toxicities and risks

1. Evolution of Chimeric Antigen Receptors

Early evidence had suggested that adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, after depletion of circulating lymphocytes, could result in a clinical response in some tumor patients however developments showed autologous T-cells (obtained from same patient) could be engineered to express tumor-associated antigens (TAA) and replace the TILS in the clinical setting.

However there were some problems noticed.

  • Problem: HLA restriction of T-cells. Solution: genetically engineer T-cells to redirect T-cell specificity to surface TAAs
  • Problem: 1st generation vectors designed to engineer T-cells to recognize surface epitopes but engineered cells had limited survival in patients.   Solution: development of 2nd generation vectors with co-stimulatory molecules such as CD28, CD19 to improve survival and proliferation in patients

A summary table of limitations of the two types of genetically-modified T-cell therapies were given and given (in modified form) below

                                                                                                Type of Gene-modified T-Cell

Limitations aβ TCR CAR
Affected by loss or decrease of HLA on tumor cells yes no
Affected by altered tumor cell antigen processing? yes no
Need to have defined tumor target antigen? no yes
Vector recombination with endogenous TCR yes no

A brief history of construction of 2nd and 3rd generation CAR-T cells given by cancer.gov:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/research-updates/2013/CAR-T-Cells

cartdiagrampic

Differences between  second- and third-generation chimeric antigen receptor T cells. (Adapted by permission from the American Association for Cancer Research: Lee, DW et al. The Future Is Now: Chimeric Antigen Receptors as New Targeted Therapies for Childhood Cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 2012;18(10); 2780–90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1920)

Constructing a CAR T Cell (from cancer.gov)

The first efforts to engineer T cells to be used as a cancer treatment began in the early 1990s. Since then, researchers have learned how to produce T cells that express chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that recognize specific targets on cancer cells.

The T cells are genetically modified to produce these receptors. To do this, researchers use viral vectors that are stripped of their ability to cause illness but that retain the capacity to integrate into cells’ DNA to deliver the genetic material needed to produce the T-cell receptors.

The second- and third-generation CARs typically consist of a piece of monoclonal antibody, called a single-chain variable fragment (scFv), that resides on the outside of the T-cell membrane and is linked to stimulatory molecules (Co-stim 1 and Co-stim 2) inside the T cell. The scFv portion guides the cell to its target antigen. Once the T cell binds to its target antigen, the stimulatory molecules provide the necessary signals for the T cell to become fully active. In this fully active state, the T cells can more effectively proliferate and attack cancer cells.

2. Adverse Event Reporting and Protocol Considerations

The symposium had been organized mainly in response to two reported deaths of patients enrolled in a CART trial, so that clinical investigators could discuss and formulate best practices for the proper conduct and analysis of such trials. One issue raised was lack of pharmacovigilence procedures (adverse event reporting). Although no pharmacovigilence procedures (either intra or inter-institutional) were devised from meeting proceedings, it was stressed that each institution should address this issue as well as better clinical outcome reporting.

Case Report of a Serious Adverse Event Following the Administration of T Cells Transduced With a Chimeric Antigen Receptor Recognizing ERBB2[2] had reported the death of a patient on trial.

In A phase I clinical trial of adoptive transfer of folate receptor-alpha redirected autologous T cells for recurrent ovarian cancer[3] authors: Lana E Kandalaft*, Daniel J Powell and George Coukos from University of Pennsylvania recorded adverse events in pilot studies using a CART modified to recognize the folate receptor, so it appears any adverse event reporting system is at the discretion of the primary investigator.

Other protocol considerations suggested by the symposium attendants included:

  • Plan for translational clinical lab for routine blood analysis
  • Subject screening for pulmonary and cardiac events
  • Determine possibility of insertional mutagenesis
  • Informed consent
  • Analysis of non T and T-cell subsets, e.g. natural killer cells and CD*8 cells

3. Consideration for Design of Trials and Mitigating Toxicities

  • Early Toxic effectsCytokine Release Syndrome– The effectiveness of CART therapy has been manifested by release of high levels of cytokines resulting in fever and inflammatory sequelae. One such cytokine, interleukin 6, has been attributed to this side effect and investigators have successfully used an IL6 receptor antagonist, tocilizumab (Acterma™), to alleviate symptoms of cytokine release syndrome (see review Adoptive T-cell therapy: adverse events and safety switches by Siok-Keen Tey).

 

Below is a video form Dr. Renier Brentjens, M.D., Ph.D. for Memorial Sloan Kettering concerning the finding he made that the adverse event from cytokine release syndrome may be a function of the tumor cell load, and if they treat the patient with CAR-T right after salvage chemotherapy the adverse events are alleviated..

Please see video below:

http link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gg6elUMIVE

  • Early Toxic effects – Over-activation of CAR T-cells; mitigation by dose escalation strategy (as authors in reference [3] proposed). Most trials give billions of genetically modified cells to a patient.
  • Late Toxic Effectslong-term depletion of B-cells . For example CART directing against CD19 or CD20 on B cells may deplete the normal population of CD19 or CD20 B-cells over time; possibly managed by IgG supplementation

 Please look for a Followup Post concerning “Developing a Pharmacovigilence Framework for Engineered T-Cell Therapies”

References

  1. Ertl HC, Zaia J, Rosenberg SA, June CH, Dotti G, Kahn J, Cooper LJ, Corrigan-Curay J, Strome SE: Considerations for the clinical application of chimeric antigen receptor T cells: observations from a recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Symposium held June 15, 2010. Cancer research 2011, 71(9):3175-3181.
  2. Morgan RA, Yang JC, Kitano M, Dudley ME, Laurencot CM, Rosenberg SA: Case report of a serious adverse event following the administration of T cells transduced with a chimeric antigen receptor recognizing ERBB2. Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy 2010, 18(4):843-851.
  3. Kandalaft LE, Powell DJ, Jr., Coukos G: A phase I clinical trial of adoptive transfer of folate receptor-alpha redirected autologous T cells for recurrent ovarian cancer. Journal of translational medicine 2012, 10:157.

Other posts on this site on Immunotherapy and Cancer include

Report on Cancer Immunotherapy Market & Clinical Pipeline Insight

New Immunotherapy Could Fight a Range of Cancers

Combined anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 immunotherapy shows promising results against advanced melanoma

Molecular Profiling in Cancer Immunotherapy: Debraj GuhaThakurta, PhD

Pancreatic Cancer: Genetics, Genomics and Immunotherapy

$20 million Novartis deal with ‘University of Pennsylvania’ to develop Ultra-Personalized Cancer Immunotherapy

Upcoming Meetings on Cancer Immunogenetics

Tang Prize for 2014: Immunity and Cancer

ipilimumab, a Drug that blocks CTLA-4 Freeing T cells to Attack Tumors @DM Anderson Cancer Center

Juno’s approach eradicated cancer cells in 10 of 12 leukemia patients, indicating potential to transform the standard of care in oncology

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


How Mobile Elements in “Junk” DNA Promote Cancer – Part 1: Transposon-mediated Tumorigenesis

Author, Writer and Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

SOURCE

Landscape of Somatic Retrotransposition in Human Cancers. Science (2012); Vol. 337:967-971. (1)

Sequencing of the human genome via massive programs such as the Cancer Genome Atlas Program (CGAP) and the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) consortium in conjunction with considerable bioinformatics efforts led by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) have unlocked a myriad of yet unclassified genes (for good review see (2).  The project encompasses 32 institutions worldwide which, so far, have generated 1640 data sets, initially depending on microarray platforms but now moving to the more cost effective new sequencing technology.  Initially the ENCODE project focused on three types of cells: an immature white blood cell line GM12878, leukemic line K562, and an approved human embryonic cell line H1-hESC.  The analysis was rapidly expanded to another 140 cell types.  DNA sequencing had revealed 20,687 known coding regions with hints of 50 more coding regions.  Another 11,224 DNA stretches were classified as pseudogenes.  The ENCODE project reveals that many genes encode for an RNA, not protein product, so called regulatory RNAs.

However some of the most recent and interesting results focus on the noncoding regions of the human genome, previously discarded as uninteresting or “junk” DNA .  Only 2% of the human genome contains coding regions while 98% of this noncoding part of the genome is actually found to be highly active “with about 4 million constantly communicating switches” (3).  Some of these “switches” in the noncoding portion contain small, repetitive elements which are mobile throughout the genome, and can control gene expression and/or predispose to disease such as cancer.  These mobile elements, found in almost all organisms, are classified as transposable elements (TE), inserting themselves into far-reaching regions of the genome.  Retro-transposons are capable of generating new insertions through RNA intermediates.  These transposable elements are normally kept immobile by epigenetic mechanisms(4-6) however some TEs can escape epigenetic repression and insert in areas of the genome, a process described as insertional mutagenesis as the process can lead to gene alterations seen in disease(7).  In addition, this insertional mutagenesis can lead to the transformation of cells and, as described in Post 2, act as a model system to determine drivers of oncogenesis. This insertional mutagenesis is a different mechanism of genetic alteration and rearrangement seen in cancer like recombination and fusion of gene fragments as seen with the Philadelphia chromosome and BCR/ABL fusion protein (8).  The mechanism of transposition and putative effects leading to mutagenesis are described in the following figure:

Image

Figure.  Insertional mutagenesis based on transposon-mediated mechanism.  A) Basic structure of  transposon contains gene/sequence flanked by two inverted repeats (IR) and/or direct repeats (DR).  An enzyme, the transposase (red hexagon) binds and cuts at the IR/DR and transposon is pasted at another site in DNA, containing an insertion site.  B)   Multiple transpositions may results in oncogenic events by inserting in promoters leading to altered expression of genes driving oncogenesis or inserting within coding regions and inactivating tumor suppressors or activating oncogenes.  Deep sequencing of the resultant tumor genomes ( based on nested PCR from IR/DRs) may reveal common insertion sites (CIS) and oncogenic mutations could be identified.

In a bioinformatics study Eunjung Lee et al.(1), in collaboration with the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, the authors had analyzed 43 high-coverage whole-genome sequencing datasets from five cancer types to determine transposable element insertion sites.  Using a novel computational method, the authors had identified 194 high-confidence somatic TE insertion sites present in cancers of epithelial origin such as colorectal, prostate and ovarian, but not in brain or blood cancers.  Sixty four of the 194 detected somatic TE insertions were located within 62 annotated genes. Genes with TE insertion in colon cancers have commonly high mutation rates and enriched genes were associated with cell adhesion functions (CDH12, ROBO2,NRXN3, FPR2, COL1A1, NEGR1, NTM and CTNNA2) or tumor suppressor functions (NELL1m ROBO2, DBC1, and PARK2).  None of the somatic events were located within coding regions, with the TE sequences being detected in untranslated regions (UTR) or intronic regions.  Previous studies had shown insertion in these regions (UTR or intronic) can disrupts gene expression (9). Interestingly, most of the genes with insertion sites were down-regulated, suggested by a recent paper showing that local changes in methylation status of transposable elements can drive retro-transposition (10,11).  Indeed, the authors found that somatic insertions are biased toward the hypomethylated regions in cancer cell DNA.  The authors also confirmed that the insertion sites were unique to cancer and were somatic insertions, not germline (germline: arising during embryonic development) in origin by analyzing 44 normal genomes (41 normal blood samples from cancer patients and three healthy individuals).

The authors conclude:

“that some TE insertions provide a selective advantage during tumorigenesis,

rather than being merely passenger events that precede clonal expansion(1).”

The authors also suggest that more bioinformatics studies, which utilize the expansive genomic and epigenetic databases, could determine functional consequences of such transposable elements in cancerThe following Post will describe how use of transposon-mediated insertional mutagenesis is leading to discoveries of the drivers (main genetic events) leading to oncogenesis.

1.            Lee, E., Iskow, R., Yang, L., Gokcumen, O., Haseley, P., Luquette, L. J., 3rd, Lohr, J. G., Harris, C. C., Ding, L., Wilson, R. K., Wheeler, D. A., Gibbs, R. A., Kucherlapati, R., Lee, C., Kharchenko, P. V., and Park, P. J. (2012) Science 337, 967-971

2.            Pennisi, E. (2012) Science 337, 1159, 1161

3.            Park, A. (2012) Don’t Trash These Genes. “Junk DNA may lead to valuable cures. in Time, Time, Inc., New York, N.Y.

4.            Maksakova, I. A., Mager, D. L., and Reiss, D. (2008) Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS 65, 3329-3347

5.            Slotkin, R. K., and Martienssen, R. (2007) Nature reviews. Genetics 8, 272-285

6.            Yang, N., and Kazazian, H. H., Jr. (2006) Nature structural & molecular biology 13, 763-771

7.            Hancks, D. C., and Kazazian, H. H., Jr. (2012) Current opinion in genetics & development 22, 191-203

8.            Sattler, M., and Griffin, J. D. (2001) International journal of hematology 73, 278-291

9.            Han, J. S., Szak, S. T., and Boeke, J. D. (2004) Nature 429, 268-274

10.          Reichmann, J., Crichton, J. H., Madej, M. J., Taggart, M., Gautier, P., Garcia-Perez, J. L., Meehan, R. R., and Adams, I. R. (2012) PLoS computational biology 8, e1002486

11.          Byun, H. M., Heo, K., Mitchell, K. J., and Yang, A. S. (2012) Journal of biomedical science 19, 13

Other research paper on ENCODE and Cancer were published on this Scientific Web site as follows:

Expanding the Genetic Alphabet and linking the genome to the metabolome

Junk DNA codes for valuable miRNAs: non-coding DNA controls Diabetes

ENCODE Findings as Consortium

Reveals from ENCODE project will invite high synergistic collaborations to discover specific targets

ENCODE: the key to unlocking the secrets of complex genetic diseases

Impact of evolutionary selection on functional regions: The imprint of evolutionary selection on ENCODE regulatory elements is manifested between species and within human populations

Metabolite Identification Combining Genetic and Metabolic Information: Genetic association links unknown metabolites to functionally related genes

Advances in Separations Technology for the “OMICs” and Clarification of Therapeutic Targets

Commentary on Dr. Baker’s post “Junk DNA codes for valuable miRNAs: non-coding DNA controls Diabetes”

Cancer Genomics – Leading the Way by Cancer Genomics Program at UC Santa Cruz

Read Full Post »