Tag: CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing

  • I fell out of love with the lab, and in love with business

    I fell out of love with the lab, and in love with business

    [ad_1]

    Portrait of Karolina Makovskytė.

    Karolina Makovskytė is head of business development at the firm Caszyme, which specializes in CRISPR-based molecular tools.Credit: Caszyme, LLC archive

    Voices from Lithuania

    In May, Lithuania marks 20 years of European Union membership. The Baltic country is keen to develop its global presence in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors by retaining home-grown talent, persuading scientists working abroad to return to the country, and attracting researchers from other nations. Nature spoke to three researchers who have chosen to develop their careers in Lithuania. Here, Nature speaks to Karolina Makovskytė, head of business development at Caszyme, a biotechnology firm that specializes in CRISPR-based molecular tools.

    Before the COVID-19 pandemic, when I was an undergraduate molecular-biology student at Vilnius University in Lithuania, I loved laboratory work. But when labs closed during the pandemic, I lost my motivation and it never returned.

    In 2021, during the fourth and final year of my degree, a recruiter contacted me about a part-time junior product-manager post at the Vilnius site of biotechnology firm Thermo Fisher Scientific. The company was manufacturing reagents for messenger RNA vaccines, and it had built a whole new facility and was producing them on a large scale.

    Thermo arrived in the country in 2010, when it acquired Lithuanian biotech company Fermentas for US$260 million. Its Vilnius site manufactures products for the life-science market, specifically molecular, protein and cellular-biology products. It also has a research and development centre.

    It’s common for science students to work during their studies and for me it provided a chance to see what working in the biotech field was like, and to find out what options I had with a life-sciences degree, other than working in the laboratory.

    I was working on a portfolio of nucleic-acid therapeutics, helping senior product managers with requests from companies for different nucleotides and enzymes, mainly for mRNA vaccine development and production. I carried on working at Thermo, during my master’s degree in molecular biotechnology, also at Vilnius University. Even on the administrative and business side, many people had a master’s or PhD.

    As part of my master’s, I attended lectures on the genome-editing tool CRISPR, led by Giedrius Gasiūnas, co-founder and chief scientific officer at biotech company Caszyme in Vilnius.

    Virginijus Šikšnys, another co-founder and chair of the management board, is a department head at Vilnius University’s Institute of Biotechnology. This demonstrates the blended nature of academia and the world of biotech start-up companies in Lithuania.

    I applied for a business-development manager role there and started work in March 2022, while doing my master’s degree, which I completed last year. My job involves relationship building and representing the company abroad.

    The company discovers and develops CRISPR-based molecular tools for diverse applications. It has 17 scientists and is growing all the time. In January, we moved premises to a larger building opposite the Vilnius site of the firm Northway Biotech, and close to Vilnius University Hospital.

    Currently, Caszyme focuses on three elements. The first is research: finding new CRISPR–Cas nucleases for companies that are looking for specific characteristics. Second is licences: the company has a platform of nucleases that it has already identified, and it offers licences for further development. And third is analysis: Caszyme helps companies with expression, purification and biochemical analysis of Cas nucleases.

    Currently, the firm has a handful of active collaborations in the therapeutics and diagnostics fields, including in infectious diseases and agriculture.

    A friendly and close community

    I think there are many aspects of academia and industry that set Lithuania apart from other countries. First, we have great universities that prepare scientists very well for the future. Scientists leave with not only theoretical knowledge, but also research experience working in a lab.

    Lab work being done at Caszyme in Lithuania.

    Karolina Makovskytė moved into industry after discovering the lab was not for her.Credit: Caszyme, LLC archive

    Second is that the ecosystem is not a big one. It’s very easy to get to know most people and that’s an advantage because it makes collaborations easier.

    Third, industry scientists have close contact with government institutions that ask us what businesses want and how they can help. I don’t want to say it’s easy to build a biotechnology company, but Lithuania has all the right tools to do high-quality research.

    My proudest achievement is probably my personal growth. I can really see a difference between now and when I started working — I’ve gained knowledge and experience, and matured as a person. Last June, aged 25, I was promoted to head of business development.

    I work remotely in Kaunas, the second-largest city in Lithuania, which has a beautiful old town and is known for its art deco architecture. We have three international airports and Vilnius is only an hour and a half by road, so it’s easy to get to the office when I need to. Some of my time is spent abroad — I’ve just come back from a technology summit in San Francisco, California, and now I’m in Rome.

    I don’t want to work abroad permanently. Lithuania has wonderful countryside and is full of culture, too. Every year, in March we have an international film festival, which I have worked for as a volunteer in the past.

    If you find you don’t like working in a lab, like me, my advice would be to find a job outside the lab and see if it fits. If it doesn’t, try something else and talk to people who have different positions in life sciences. Explore the opportunities.

    I talk to lots of people at events and many of them have PhDs or have worked as postdocs but have decided that they don’t want to be scientists. There’s nothing shameful in that. People who work in business development or operations and who have a scientific degree are essential, too.

    My advice for young scientists who are considering a research position in Lithuania is to just do it. We have a friendly and close research community so it’s very easy to collaborate. Also, scientists here have a wide network all over the world. It’s very easy to join projects that Lithuanian scientists are doing with global institutes and companies. We Lithuanians talk to each other a lot!

    Jacqui Thornton’s travel and accommodation were provided by Go Vilnius, a development agency.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    This article is part of Nature Spotlight: Lithuania, an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How I’m supporting other researchers who have moved to Lithuania

    How I’m supporting other researchers who have moved to Lithuania

    [ad_1]

    Stephen Knox Jones with his wife and dog in Vilnius, Lithuania.

    Stephen Knox Jones moved to Vilnius with his wife, Eva Sadler, and his dog, Audrey Sparkles. Credit: Eva Sadler

    Voices from Lithuania

    In May, Lithuania marks 20 years of European Union membership. The Baltic country is keen to develop its global presence in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors by retaining home-grown talent, persuading scientists working abroad to return and attracting researchers from other nations. Nature spoke to three researchers who have chosen to develop their careers in Lithuania. Here, Nature speaks to Stephen Knox Jones, grant pioneer and gene-editing specialist at the EMBL Partnership Institute for Genome Editing Technologies at Vilnius University’s Life Sciences Center.

    I first became aware of Lithuanian science in 2015 when I was a postdoc at the University of Texas at Austin. I’d transitioned from research in cellular ageing to gene editing, beginning with CRISPR. Lithuania is one of the places where gene-editing tools have really developed over the past few decades.

    Six years later, I started applying for faculty positions. I got two offers from institutes in the United States and one from an institute in Denmark, but the one I got from Vilnius really excited me. I was offered €1 million (US$1.3 million) to set up a lab based at Vilnius University’s Life Sciences Center, which had newly partnered with the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), focusing specifically on developing gene-editing technologies.

    It was attractive for two reasons. It was an area of excellence in my field; and it was a new institute. One thing I had seen throughout my training is that a lot of times you end up having vestiges of previous administrations that make it very difficult to implement best practices.

    At Vilnius, I would be working with other new group leaders — six in total — so we would be able to shape the institute. It also meant that I wouldn’t be the one new person here; we were all taking our step to independence together. I arrived in July 2021 with my wife, Eva Sadler — a writer and editor — and our greyhound, Audrey Sparkles.

    We received help with visas and permits; accommodation and transport; financial support for relocating; city tours of Vilnius, which has a beautiful Old Town; and even help with shopping when we arrived. As part of the EMBL partnership, I was given assistance with purchasing equipment and consumables, bringing students and employees on to my team, and navigating the research ecosystem I was now part of.

    Soon after I arrived, I started an international association to help support other people coming from abroad, providing mentors and acting as a liaison to help with administration. The association also coordinates social events and language classes. I’m learning Lithuanian and I advocated for having language classes at the Life Sciences Center. There are now two a week.

    Once I arrived, I thought, ‘Okay, I’ve got one more year that I’m eligible for this European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant.’ I got it on the first try, which is good, because that’s the only try I had. I was awarded €1.2 million. It was the first ERC starting grant ever awarded in Lithuania.

    Getting this grant means I can tell my team members to focus on the science — in our case understanding how well the current gene-editing tool sets work, and how we can apply them safely and make them better. I won a second grant in January, an Installation Grant from the European life-sciences organization EMBO. It is the only one awarded this year in Lithuania. With the grant, I am looking for another postdoc student.

    A growing lab

    Currently, I have six graduate students and postdocs, and six undergraduate students. It’s an international team. Until February, we had a master’s student from Lagos on the team. My group also includes a remote summer intern at the University of California, San Diego, and a PhD student from Pakistan. There are also Lithuanian-born scientists who have studied elsewhere and come back, as well as others who have never left the country.

    Stephen Knox Jones with his colleagues in Vilnius, Lithuania.

    Stephen Knox Jones (centre) with his team at Vilnius University’s Life Sciences Center.Credit: Jurgita Satkūnaitė

    The undergraduates spend 10–15 hours a week in the lab as part of their theses, doing primary research. It’s one of the things I love about Lithuania: students here start their research careers much earlier than they do in the United States.

    If research is not for you, you should learn that as soon as possible, so that you can find the right career path. Here, students get involved in the research, they understand what it takes, the ups and the downs and the strategies in general.

    One of the other things that attracted me to Lithuania is its history, and the infrastructure that has been implemented since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1990. It’s a lot more agile than elsewhere in Europe and the United States — it is not weighed down by old systems. For example, the idea for the Life Science Center, in which I now work, came about in 2010, and it now offers a world class facility for around 1,000 students, including more than 110 PhD students, alongside some 200 researchers. The biotech companies that have started up close by in Vilnius, and that offer students research work, provide a unique opportunity.

    I returned to the United States for two weeks last year and I was happy to see my family and friends, and their new babies. But I’m not certain I’ll go back permanently. We’ve bought a flat here. In my spare time, I’m recording a soul pop album with Eva. (I used to be in a band called the Bone Pilots in Texas and I still love writing music and performing.) I also enjoy motorcycling, and I do acroyoga with friends.

    I like the fact that Lithuania prioritizes well-being — in general, people are thoughtful about others. The country’s lakes and forests offer wonderful access to the natural world. I talk to my researcher friends elsewhere, and the quality of life I have, compared with theirs, it could be night and day. It’s a great experience.

    Jacqui Thornton’s travel and accommodation was provided by Go Vilnius, a tourism and development agency.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    This article is part of Nature Spotlight: Lithuania, an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘ChatGPT for CRISPR’ creates new gene-editing tools

    ‘ChatGPT for CRISPR’ creates new gene-editing tools

    [ad_1]

    Computer illustration showing the molecular structure of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing complex from Streptococcus pyogenes.

    A 3D model of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing complex from Streptococcus pyogenes.Credit: Indigo Molecular Images/Science Photo Library

    In the never-ending quest to discover previously unknown CRISPR gene-editing systems, researchers have scoured microbes in everything from hot springs and peat bogs, to poo and even yogurt. Now, thanks to advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI), they might be able to design these systems with the push of a button.

    This week, researchers published details of how they used a generative AI tool called a protein language model — a neural network trained on millions of protein sequences — to design CRISPR gene-editing proteins, and were then able to show that some of these systems work as expected in the laboratory1.

    And in February, another team announced that it had developed a model trained on microbial genomes, and used it to design fresh CRISPR systems, which are comprised of a DNA or RNA-cutting enzyme and RNA molecules that direct the molecular scissors as to where to cut2.

    “It’s really just scratching the surface. It’s showing that it’s possible to design these complex systems with machine-learning models,” says Ali Madani, a machine-learning scientist and chief executive of the biotechnology firm Profluent, based in Berkeley, California. Madani’s team reported what it says is “the first successful editing of the human genome by proteins designed entirely with machine learning” in a 22 April preprint1 on bioRxiv.org (which hasn’t been peer-reviewed).

    Alan Wong, a synthetic biologist at the University of Hong Kong, whose team has used machine learning to optimize CRISPR3, says that naturally occurring gene-editing systems have limitations in terms of the sequences that they can target and the sort of changes that they can make. For some applications, therefore, it can be a challenge to find the right CRISPR. “Expanding the repertoire of editors, using AI, could help,” he says.

    Trained on genomes

    Whereas chatbots such as ChatGPT are designed to handle language after being trained on existing text, the CRISPR-designing AIs were instead trained on vast troves of biological data in the form of protein or genome sequences. The goal of this ‘pre-training’ step is to imbue the models with insight into naturally occurring genetic sequences, such as which amino acids tend to go together. This information can then be applied to tasks such as the creation of totally new sequences.

    Madani’s team previously used a protein language model they developed, called ProGen, to come up with new antibacterial proteins4. To devise new CRISPRs, his team retrained an updated version of ProGen with examples of millions of diverse CRISPR systems, which bacteria and other single-celled microbes called archaea use to fend off viruses.

    Because CRISPR gene-editing systems comprise not only proteins, but also RNA molecules that specify their target, Madani’s team developed another AI model to design these ‘guide RNAs’.

    The team then used the neural network to design millions of new CRISPR protein sequences that belong to dozens of different families of such proteins found in nature. To see whether AI-designed CRISPRs were bona fide gene editors, Madani’s team synthesized DNA sequences corresponding to more than 200 protein designs belonging to the CRISPR–Cas9 system that is now widely used in the laboratory. When they inserted these sequences — instructions for a Cas9 protein and a ‘guide RNA’ — into human cells, many of the gene editors were able to precisely cut their intended targets in the genome.

    The most promising Cas9 protein — a molecule they’ve named OpenCRISPR-1 — was just as efficient at cutting targeted DNA sequences as a widely used bacterial CRISPR–Cas9 enzyme, and it made far fewer cuts in the wrong place. The researchers also used the OpenCRISPR-1 design to create a base editor — a precision gene-editing tool that changes individual DNA ‘letters’ — and found that it, too, was as efficient as other base-editing systems, as well as less prone to errors.

    Another team, led by Brian Hie, a computational biologist at Stanford University in California, and by bioengineer Patrick Hsu at the Arc Institute in Palo Alto, California, used an AI model capable of generating both protein and RNA sequences. Their model, called EVO, was trained on 80,000 genomes from bacteria and archaea, as well as other microbial sequences, amounting to 300 billion DNA letters. Hie and Hsu’s team has not yet tested its designs in the lab. But predicted structures of some of the CRISPR–Cas9 systems they designed resemble those of natural proteins. Their work was described in a preprint2 posted on bioRxiv.org, and has not been peer-reviewed.

    Precision medicine

    “This is amazing,” says Noelia Ferruz Capapey, a computational biologist at the Molecular Biology Institute of Barcelona in Spain. She’s impressed by the fact that researchers can use the OpenCRISPR-1 molecule without restriction, unlike with some patented gene-editing tools. The ProGen2 model and ‘atlas’ of CRISPR sequences used to fine-tune it are also freely available.

    The hope is that AI-designed gene-editing tools could be better suited to medical applications than are existing CRISPRs, says Madani. Profluent, he adds, is hoping to partner with companies that are developing gene-editing therapies to test AI-generated CRISPRs. “It really necessitates precision and a bespoke design. And I think that just can’t be done by copying and pasting” from naturally-occurring CRISPR systems, he says.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • MEGA-CRISPR tool gives a power boost to cancer-fighting cells

    MEGA-CRISPR tool gives a power boost to cancer-fighting cells

    [ad_1]

    Coloured scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of T lymphocyte cells (smaller round cells) attached to cancer cells.

    Engineered cells called CAR T cells (pictured, red; artificially coloured) swarm cancer cells (green). A tool that edits RNA can restore the efficiency of ‘exhausted’ CAR T cells.Credit: Steve Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library

    The CRISPR–Cas9 gene-editing system excels at altering and disrupting genes. But the changes it makes are permanent, which can be a big problem if the system goes awry. Now, a CRISPR-based system that targets a cell’s short-lived messenger RNA instead of DNA could provide a more precise and reversible way of designing cell therapies — and even help scientists to discover how different genes work together.

    The results were published on 21 February in Cell1.

    RNA gets its turn

    Engineered CRISPR systems generally have two main components: a DNA-cutting enzyme, often Cas9, and a piece of ‘guide’ RNA that directs the enzyme to the stretch of DNA to be edited. One of the system’s most promising medical applications has been its potential use in producing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. These are made by engineering the immune foot soldiers called T cells to attack specific proteins on the surfaces of tumour cells. But DNA-editing CRISPR systems can pose safety problems and are relatively inefficient in these cells.

    Bioengineer Stanley Qi and immunologist Crystal Mackall, both at Stanford University in California, and their colleagues developed an alternative system, called MEGA (multiplexed effector guide arrays). It has CRISPR guide RNA but swaps the DNA-cutting Cas9 for an RNA-cutting alternative called Cas13d. The CRISPR half of the duo directs Cas13d to a target mRNA, which is produced from a DNA template.

    “We are not really touching any DNA,” Qi says. This avoids the risk of inducing permanent changes or, worse, cutting DNA in places other than the designated target. The mRNA doesn’t last very long in a cell, so any mistakes will quickly disappear.

    Active cells such as T cells produce a constantly changing variety of mRNA molecules, each directing the production of a specific protein. Cas13d cuts the target mRNA, destroying it and preventing it from churning out its specific protein. This has the same effect as turning off the associated gene. MEGA allowed the researchers to create ‘multiplex’ CRISPR–Cas13d systems that can shut down the production of multiple proteins, effectively turning off up to ten genes at a time.

    Rejuvenating exhausted cells

    The team used the system to address a shortcoming of CAR-T therapy called T-cell exhaustion. If CAR T cells are activated too many times by a chronic infection or a long-term tumour, they become less effective.

    To give a jolt to tired T cells, the researchers designed CRISPR systems that target mRNA molecules involved in functions including energy production and sugar metabolism. T cells treated with some MEGA combinations stopped expressing molecular signals of exhaustion and became better at shrinking tumours in mice.

    Qi, Mackall and their colleagues also created a version of Cas13d that is switched on only when the CAR T cells are treated with the antibiotic trimethoprim. By varying the doses of trimethoprim, the researchers could ‘tune’ mRNA levels up and down, giving the team precise control over when and how molecular pathways were activated, rather than just shutting them down entirely.

    “It’s always thrilling to see how the RNA CRISPR toolbox is applied,” says systems biologist Jonathan Gootenberg at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The ability to tune the collection of RNA transcripts, he says, will be especially useful for cell therapies.

    Joseph Fraietta, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, agrees. In his own experience with CRISPR, he says, his group can edit only about three genes in CAR T cells at a time before the cells become unhealthy. “This will open more avenues,” he says. But he cautions that the system requires continuously high levels of Cas13d, which might trigger an immune response.

    Mackall and Qi say that MEGA’s ability to tune gene expression allows scientists to vary the levels of a wide array of mRNAs at one time, revealing how different amounts of mRNA from various combinations of genes work together to carry out cellular functions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RNA-editing therapies pick up steam

    RNA-editing therapies pick up steam

    [ad_1]

    An artist's illustration of a messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) strand.

    Tools to edit messenger RNA (artist’s illustration) are touted being as safer and more flexible than the CRISPR–Cas9 system, which changes the genome itself.Credit: Christoph Burgstedt/Science Photo Library

    RNA editing is gaining momentum. After decades of basic research into how to manipulate this complex molecule, at least three therapies based on RNA editing have either entered clinical trials or received approval to do so. They are the first to reach this milestone.

    Proponents of RNA editing have long argued that it could be a safer and more flexible alternative to genome-editing techniques such as CRISPR, but it poses substantial technical problems.

    The launch of human trials signals the growing maturity and acceptance of the field, scientists say. “There’s a much greater understanding of RNA technology, and that’s been partially enhanced by the RNA vaccine and the COVID pandemic,” says Andrew Lever, a biologist at the University of Cambridge, UK. “RNA is now seen as a very important therapeutic molecule.”

    Temp job

    RNA has a crucial role in protein synthesis: the genetic information encoded in DNA is transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA) before being translated into proteins. RNA molecules are composed of building blocks called nucleotides, each containing one of four bases, or letters.

    RNA-editing techniques aim to compensate for harmful mutations by changing the sequence of RNA, allowing normal proteins to be synthesized. RNA editing can also increase the production of beneficial proteins.

    Unlike CRISPR genome editing, RNA editing doesn’t change genes. Nor does it introduce permanent changes, because RNA molecules are transient. This means that the duration of the therapeutic effect could be shorter.

    But that transience could offer safety advantages. One risk of CRISPR therapies is off-target effects, or unintended changes outside the target genomic region, notes Joshua Rosenthal, a neurobiologist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. “An off-target effect in DNA is potentially quite dangerous. In RNA, it’s less so, because it’s going to turn over.”

    One letter at a time

    One common RNA-editing approach, single-base editing, harnesses an enzyme that is already found in cells: adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR). This enzyme swaps a base called adenine in the RNA sequence for a base called an inosine.

    Wave Life Sciences in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is exploring single-base editing to treat a genetic disorder called alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), which can damage the lungs and the liver. The disease reduces the production of AAT, a protein made in liver cells that protects lungs from damage caused by inhaling polluted air or other irritants.

    Wave’s product is a short chain of nucleotides that directs naturally occurring ADAR enzymes to change a specific letter in each mRNA molecule to correct the mutation that affects AAT production. “By using the cell’s endogenous machinery to edit that single base, you now make a normal protein. And we’ve shown that the normal protein can be expressed at high levels,” says Paul Bolno, Wave’s president and chief executive.

    In mice, the drug edited around 50% of the target mRNA in liver cells, which is enough to produce therapeutic effects, Bolno says.

    The company’s clinical trial of the drug began last December in the United Kingdom and Australia, and will evaluate the drug’s safety and other features.

    Editing whole paragraphs

    Another approach, called RNA exon editing, changes thousands of genetic letters in an RNA molecule at once, as opposed to changing just one letter. Exon editing is akin to editing a whole paragraph instead of correcting one typo, says Lever. This technology is particularly important for disorders caused by multiple mutations in a person’s genome; such arrays of mutations are difficult to address with single-base changes, he adds.

    The technique targets pre-mRNA, which is transcribed from DNA and then processed to make mRNA. Pre-mRNA includes both exons — parts of the RNA transcript that contain instructions for making proteins — and introns, which don’t contain such instructions. Through a mechanism called RNA splicing, the introns are cut out of the pre-mRNA, and the exons are stitched together to form the final mRNA, which is translated into protein.

    Companies such as Ascidian Therapeutics in Boston, Massachusetts, are leveraging the RNA-splicing process to remove mutation-containing exons and replace them with healthy ones. Last month, Ascidian received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for a clinical trial of an exon editor to treat Stargardt disease, which causes vision loss. People with the disease have several mutations in a single gene, leading to the production of a defective protein that normally protects the retina.

    Ascidian’s therapy relies on an engineered DNA segment that is delivered into cells and produces normal RNA exons. These replace the mutated ones during the splicing process, resulting in functional proteins. The DNA also produces RNA sequences that facilitate exon editing.

    “With one molecule, [the therapy] is able to replace 22 exons at one time,” says biologist Robert Bell, head of research at Ascidian.

    Cancer-quashing RNA

    The potential of RNA-based therapies is not limited to genetic diseases. Rznomics, a biopharmaceutical company in Seongnam, South Korea, is testing an RNA editor to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, the most common type of liver cancer. In September 2022, the company started a clinical trial in South Korea, which it intends to expand internationally.

    Rznomics’s approach involves mRNA splicing — but, unlike Ascidian’s method, it doesn’t use the cell’s own splicing machinery. Instead, the company co-opted a naturally occurring ribozyme, an RNA molecule that can induce splicing in target regions of mRNA. Researchers engineered the ribozymes to cut open mRNAs in tumour cells and insert a lethal cargo: an RNA sequence that is translated into a protein that generates a toxin that induces cell death. When surrounding cancer cells come into contact with these cells, the toxin spreads, promoting their death as well. This therapeutic molecule replaces an RNA sequence that is associated with tumour growth.

    The use of the splicing approach against more than one disease is very exciting, says Lever, who is also the chief medical officer of Spliceor in Cambridge, UK, a firm that is working on RNA-splicing therapies. “It opens up a whole new range of possibilities of treatment for things which otherwise can’t be treated.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Turbocharged CAR-T cells melt tumours in mice — using a trick from cancer cells

    Turbocharged CAR-T cells melt tumours in mice — using a trick from cancer cells

    [ad_1]

    Coloured scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of a T-cell ( purple) and a brain cancer cell ( oligodendroglioma).

    A cancer cell (blue; artificially coloured) is targeted by an engineered immune cell (purple), which can be enhanced by mutations originally discovered in cancer cells.Credit: Steve Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library

    Cancer cells are the ultimate survivors, riddled with mutations that let them thrive when healthy cells would die. These same mutations can boost the ability of game-changing cell therapies to quash cancer, a study in mice shows1.

    Among these therapies are chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, which are already used to treat several types of blood cancer. The new study shows that engineered CAR T cells carrying a mutation that was first found in cancerous T cells can vanquish tumours that don’t respond to current CAR-T therapies.

    “It’s a beautiful piece of work and opens the door for better CAR-T therapies in the future,” says Madeleine Duvic, a dermatologist and cancer researcher at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, who was not involved in the work.

    “Natural T-cell function isn’t good enough. We need to explore the extremes of T-cell function,” says Kole Roybal, an immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and co-author of the new paper. What better place to start than with the mutations that turn healthy T cells into hardier, cancerous ones?

    The new approach was published today in Nature.

    Cancer versus cancer

    In the past few decades, scientists have developed bespoke cell therapies by harnessing the cancer-killing power of immune cells such as T cells. The most advanced of these treatments, CAR-T-cell therapies, rely on T cells collected from people with cancer. The cells are edited to express CAR proteins, which enable the T cells to seek and destroy cancer cells. The T cells are then re-infused into the person they came from.

    These living drugs have taken the research community by storm, and the US Food and Drug Administration has approved several CAR-T cell therapies for blood cancers such as lymphomas and multiple myeloma. But scientists are still struggling to work out whether these cells can be used to kill ‘solid’ cancers, such as breast and lung tumours.

    Pulling from cancer’s playbook, Roybal and his colleagues incorporated 71 mutations, found in cancerous T cells, into CAR T cells. When they looked at how these perturbations affected T-cell function, one mutation stood out. The CAR T cells carrying an aberrant protein dubbed CARD11–PIK3R3 infiltrated well into tumours and had long-lasting cancer-killing activity.

    “It’s a very special molecule, it seems to be able to beat all the tests we put to it,” says study co-author Jaehyuk Choi, a dermatologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

    Potent cells

    The team treated mice carrying blood and solid cancers with several T-cell therapies boosted with CARD11–PIK3R3, and watched the animals’ tumours melt away. Researchers typically use around one million cells to treat these mice, says Choi, but even 20,000 of the cancer-mutation-boosted T cells were enough to wipe out tumours.

    “That’s an impressively small number of cells,” says Nick Restifo, a cell-therapy researcher and chief scientist of the rejuvenation start-up company Marble Therapeutics in Boston, Massachusetts.

    There is a risk that the supercharged cells will transform into cancers. But the animal data do not fuel any safety concerns, says Restifo, and the CARD11–PIK3R3 mutation seems to amp up edited T cells only when cancer cells are nearby, helping to mitigate worries about rogue immune cells.

    Choi and Roybal have co-founded Moonlight Bio in Seattle, Washington, to move these cells towards use in people with cancer. They hope to have edited cells in clinical trials in two to three years. But the bigger opportunity is the chance to find other cancer mutations that will make T-cell therapies tick.

    “A lot of people are going to think ‘Oh, this is such a good idea. Why didn’t I do this?’,” says Restifo.

    [ad_2]

    Source link