My Photo

Wisconsin Technology Network - Biotech

Science

June 24, 2008

Listening to ritalin--literally: UW study uncovers how ritalin works to boost cognition

MADISON - Stimulant medications such as Ritalin have been prescribed for decades to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and their popularity as "cognition enhancers" has recently surged among the healthy, as well.

What's now starting to catch up is knowledge of what these drugs actually do in the brain. In a paper publishing online this week in Biological Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison psychology researchers David Devilbiss and Craig Berridge report that Ritalin fine-tunes the functioning of neurons in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) - a brain region involved in attention, decision-making and impulse control - while having few effects outside it.

Because of the potential for addiction and abuse, controversy has swirled for years around the use of stimulants to treat ADHD, especially in children. By helping pinpoint Ritalin's action in the brain, the study should give drug developers a better road map to follow as they search for safer alternatives.

At the same time, the results support the idea that today's ADHD drugs may be safer than people think, says Berridge. Mounting behavioral and neurochemical evidence suggests that clinically relevant doses of Ritalin primarily target the PFC, without affecting brain centers linked to over-arousal and addiction. In other words, Ritalin at low doses doesn't appear to act like a stimulant at all.

"It's the higher doses of these drugs that are normally associated with their effects as stimulants, those that increase locomotor activity, impair cognition and target neurotransmitters all over the brain," says Berridge. "These lower doses are diametrically opposed to that. Instead, they help the PFC better do what it's supposed to do."

A behavioral disorder marked by hyperactivity, impulsivity and the inability to concentrate, ADHD has been treated for more than a half-century with Ritalin, Adderall and other stimulant drugs. New reports also indicate these meds have lately been embraced by healthy Americans of all ages as a means to boost mental performance.

Yet, despite their prevalence, we know remarkably little about how these drugs work, especially at lower doses that have been proven clinically to calm behavior and focus attention in ADHD patients, says Berridge. In 2006, his team reported that therapeutic doses of Ritalin boosted neurotransmitter levels primarily in the PFC, suggesting a selective targeting of this region of the brain. Since then, he and Devilbiss have focused on how Ritalin acts on PFC neurons to enhance cognition.

To answer this, the pair studied PFC neurons in rats under a variety of Ritalin doses, including one that improved the animals' performance in a working memory task of the type that ADHD patients have trouble completing. Using a sophisticated new system for monitoring many neurons at once through a set of microelectrodes, the scientists observed both the random, spontaneous firings of PFC neurons and their response to stimulation of an important pathway into the PFC, the hippocampus.

Much like tiny microphones, the electrodes record a pop every time a neuron fires, Devilbiss explains. Analyzing the complex patterns of "voices" that emerge is challenging but also powerful, because it allows study of neurons on many levels.

"Similar to listening to a choir, you can understand the music by listening to individual voices," says Devilbiss, "or you can listen to the interplay between the voices of the ensemble and how the different voices combine."

When they listened to individual PFC neurons, the scientists found that while cognition-enhancing doses of Ritalin had little effect on spontaneous activity, the neurons' sensitivity to signals coming from the hippocampus increased dramatically. Under higher, stimulatory doses, on the other hand, PFC neurons stopped responding to incoming information.

"This suggests that the therapeutic effects of Ritalin likely stem from this fine-tuning of PFC sensitivity," says Berridge. "You're improving the ability of these neurons to respond to behaviorally relevant signals, and that translates into better cognition, attention and working memory." Higher doses associated with drug abuse and cognitive impairment, in contrast, impair functioning of the PFC.

More intriguing still were the results that came from tuning into the entire chorus of neurons at once. When groups of neurons were already "singing" together strongly, Ritalin reinforced this coordinated activity. At the same time, the drug weakened activity that wasn't well coordinated to begin with. All of this suggests that Ritalin strengthens dominant and important signals within the PFC, while lessening weaker signals that may act as distractors, says Berridge.

"These results show a new level of action for cognition-enhancing doses of Ritalin that couldn't have been predicted from single neuron analyses," he says. "So, if you're searching for drugs that might replace Ritalin, this is one effect you could potentially look for."

He and Devilbiss also hope the research will help unravel an even deeper mystery: exactly how neurons encode complex behavior and cognition.

"Most studies look at how something that impairs cognition affects PFC neurons. But to really understand how neurons encode cognitive function, you want to see what neurons do when cognition is improved," says Berridge. "So this work sets the stage for examining the interplay among PFC neurons, higher cognition, and the action of therapeutic drugs."

The work was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Mental Health and the UW-Madison Discovery Seed Grant Program.

May 12, 2008

Madison's stem cell frontier, By Steve Clark

In an earlier column about the recent Stem Cell Symposium held on the Promega Campus, I extolled the exciting frontier of stem cell basic science that was on display; however, it was just as interesting to catch up with local stem cell researchers who attended the Symposium. I caught a glimpse of the current status of stem cell science in the Madison area.

Other health benefits of embryonic stem cells

For instance, I ran into Tim Kamp, an MD in the UW-Madison Department of Cardiology who, along with Professor Jamie Thomson, recently developed a reliable way to derive human heart cells from embryonic stem cells (ESCs).

About four years ago I first met Kamp in his UW-Madison office to learn about his research. At that time, researchers knew that when given the chance, human ESCs haphazardly differentiate in tissue culture into all the different tissue types and Kamp, using a microscope, had been able to find among the clutter of different cells a few well developed heart cells that actually were beating! You can see a short video clip of one of the beating heart cells here.

Using a steady-handed robot, Kamp inserted a very fine probe into a beating heart cell and measured its depolarization or the exchange of ions across its membrane, which constitutes the electric current that causes heart muscle to beat. With this, he recorded an “EKG” on a single human heart cell that changed as expected when he added to the culture, a drug often given to heart patients.

Currently, animal models are the best way to measure pharmacological effects of drugs on the heart—an important but insufficient model since 30% of drug failures are due to cardiotoxicity. Clearly, we need ways to test drugs on human heart cells, but until the advent of ESCs, there was no reliable way to obtain and grow them in the lab. Now, being able to derive functional heart muscle cells from ESCs provides a important option for testing drugs on real human heart tissue, thereby improving the safety and efficacy of new drugs. At least this was Kamp’s goal four years ago when I talked with him in his office.

Things seem to be progressing well. A couple of years ago, Kamp and his co-workers launched the local biotechnology company, Cellular Dynamics International, in order to bring this technology to fruition. In early March, Roche Palo Alto reached an agreement with CDI to begin using their ESC-derived heart cells for testing the cardiotoxicity of candidate drug compounds.

Using ESCs to derive fully functional mature cell types for testing potential drugs and toxins directly on human tissues is an under-appreciated and poorly communicated application for ESCs, but one that will soon be widely employed in the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, human ESCs will likely play an important role in human health, even if they are never used to directly treat human disease.

Kamp indicated that similar screening methods are being developed for other tissue cell types derived from human ESCs.

Treating neurological diseases

A few years ago, I attended a seminar by UW-Madison neuroscientist, Clive Svendson, who showed a video clip of patients with Parkinson’s disease before and after treatment with a nerve cell factor known as GDNF. The result was a dramatic slowing of disease progression in treated patients.

As encouraging as this therapy was, it remains highly experimental since GDNF cannot cross the blood-brain barrier and must be delivered by cannula—a thin tube inserted deep into the brain area affected by Parkinson’s disease—not an attractive long term option.

Furthermore, GDNF therapy only retards the progressive loss of dopamine producing neurons that is characteristic of Parkinson’s disease; it does not reverse the process. Therefore, this will not likely benefit patients with advanced disease who have lost too many of these critical cells. This is where the hope of stem cell therapy merges with the other great therapeutic hope—gene therapy.

For instance, ESCs alone are not likely to be much of a benefit for patients with Parkinson’s, because stem cell-derived dopamine-producing neurons transplanted in the brains of Parkinsonian patients likely will suffer the same fatal fortune as their endogenous predecessors. But, combine stem cell regeneration of the neurons with in situ production of GDNF via gene therapy technology and you just may be able to sustain dopamine-producing cells for the long term. Or so the hope goes.

A similar idea is being tested in Svendsen’s lab for treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; also know as ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease. Like Parkinson’s, ALS is caused by the progressive and irreversible loss of certain critical neural cells in the brain. Svendsen’s lab has developed rat and primate models of ALS and using human fetal-derived neural stem cells, in conjunction with gene transfer technology, have successfully implanted fully functional, GDNF producing neurons in brains of these ALS animals. The results are very encouraging at this point--they see long-term survival of the transplanted cells and sustained production of GDNF, and these correlate with resolution of symptoms.

This is not the first example using ESCs to successfully treat human diseases in animal models, but ESCs have not yet made it into the clinic. Human trials will likely begin in the next year or two and the FDA is now considering how to best monitor them for safety and efficacy--not a trivial undertaking, but, stay tuned.

Moving stem cell science along

At the symposium I also had the chance to connect with Eric Forsberg, the recently appointed Director of WiCell. This is the non-profit spin-off from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) that provides support for stem cell researchers at UW-Madison.

According to Forsberg, WiCell, not only maintains the National Stem Cell Bank, it also engages in outreach activities and provides core services for stem cell researchers that are not found elsewhere on the UW-Madison campus. Forsberg pointed out that WiCell is also happy to provide such support and training for private stem cell companies in order to foster the development of cell-based medicine in Wisconsin..

Forsberg hopes to soon partner with the Waissma Center on the UW-Madison campus to begin a trial run to grow clinical-scale batches of ESCs under the cGMP conditions that are required in order to use the cells to treat patients. The Waissman Center has the cGMP facilities to produce biological materials for clinical use.

This will be a proof-of-principle endeavor designed to show that ESCs can be produced in clinically relevant quantities while maintaining their state of differentiation. Unforeseen problems, the bane of any biotechnology research, will be identified and resolved during this trial run so they will be ready when the time comes to quickly move ESCs into clinical trials.

We rapidly approach the day when ESCs will be used in experimental therapies of human diseases. Probably the first trials will use blood or bone marrow products derived from ESCs as a donor source for marrow transplantation or red cell transfusion.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

© 2008 Steven S. Clark, PhD. Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, Steven S. Clark, nor other authors, do not assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any excerpts from any article must credit the BioScience Biz Blog.

April 24, 2008

The stem cell frontier, 2008, on display, By Steve Clark

Cut a flat worm in two, the tail will grow a new head and the head a new tail. Cut it right down the middle, it will grow a mirror image. How does it know what to grow?

Flies can re-grow damaged tissues. Small fish can regenerate heart muscle. Why can’t humans?

In a developing infant, how do human embryonic stem cells know to grow into heart, muscle, liver, neurological and other cell types at the proper time and in the proper place?

These questions are at the center of science’s brave-new-world of stem cell biology and were the topic of the recent 3rd Annual Stem Cell Symposium. The science was deep and detailed, and enormously enthralling. It was an intellectual playground of exciting ideas and fabulous potential.

The overriding lesson from the conference is that the mechanism by which stem cells regulate how and when they replenish themselves vs develop into different tissues is conserved in species as divergent as worms, flies, fish and mammals. This is fascinating for developmental biologists, but it also has a profound practical impact for eventually using stem cells to treat human disease. Let me explain how.

A primer on stem cell science

Consider for a moment what needs to be accomplished for an immature stem cell to differentiate into, say a beating heart cell. First, there needs to be a stimulus that initiates this program, telling the stem cell to specifically move along the cardiac muscle developmental pathway. The stem cell must then begin expressing heart cell genes while repressing the expression of all other genes that could cause it to become liver, blood, kidney and all other cell types. Quite a tall order!

Once the stem cell develops into a mature beating heart cell, it remains that type of cell. Mature cells, like zebras, cannot change their stripes. We never see a heart cell become a skin cell and vice versa. Cellular development is unidirectional and this has been one of the central tenants of developmental biology.

Then along comes Scottish scientist, Ian Wilmut, who did an experiment in the mid-1990s that no self-respecting developmental biologist would attempt since we all “knew” that cell development only moved in one direction.

What Wilmut did was to remove the nucleus from an egg cell and replace it with the nucleus from a fully mature cell taken from a different animal. Keep in mind that this donor nucleus had already been directed to express only those genes of the tissue it was taken from and to repress the expression of genes from all other tissues.

Wilmut then transferred this engineered egg into the womb of a pseudo-pregnant sheep, where the engineered egg should have died. Instead, a sheep was born that was a genetic twin of the nucleus donor sheep and the world was introduced to the first cloned animal, Dolly.

This is the type of research result that causes a scientific paradigm shift. For the first time, we realized that the genetic program of a fully developed adult cell, when placed in the proper environment, can be reprogrammed to relinquish its adult cell properties and return to its undifferentiated stem cell state, capable of developing into a fully grown sheep. 

Around the same time that Dolly was born, University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist, Jamie Thomson, published his seminal studies demonstrating the ability to grow monkey and human embryonic stem cells (or ESCs). These, of course, are the immature cells derived from five day old embryos that are able to develop into all tissues of the adult body. The way that ESCs are harvested kills these embryos making ESC research highly controversial. It would be great to be able to obtain such embryonic stem cells without having to destroy a functional human embryo.

Fast forward ten years to the conference where Professor Thomson gave an update on his recent report that he can reprogram adult cells to become stem cells without having to transplant cell nuclei. Looking at recent research from different labs, he noted that only a few regulatory genes are needed to maintain cells in their nascent developmental stage. As the research presented at the conference illustrated, these regulatory genes work across different species, so this mechanism is highly conserved in biology.

Thomson used routine gene transfer technology to induce expression of three different regulatory genes in the cells of mature fibroblasts and, amazingly, the mature cells were re-programmed to become stem cells! What Wilmut was able to do by transferring a cell nucleus to an enucleated egg can now be done in a petri dish and without the egg cell.

At the conference, Thompson explained that these “induced pluripotent cells” or iPCs seem to behave exactly like ESCs. Think about the implication of this observation: it means that mature cells from an adult can be re-programmed back to the stem cell state where they are able to generate anew, all tissues of the human body.

What next for stem cells?

UW-Madison stem cell researcher, Clive Svendson, moderator of the conference, believes that the next major advance will be the ability to develop iPCs by simply changing the environment in which adult cells are grown in the lab, which could be accomplished in about a year. This means that we would not have to insert several genes into a cell’s DNA, which has significant risks and is not a trivial procedure. Thus, it soon may be very easy to take cells from your skin, put them into a defined tissue culture environment and develop stem cells that contain your precise genetic makeup. No embryos would be destroyed and no clones would be created in the process, mitigating most of the ethical concerns.

Svendson opined that this could lead to a big boost in the tissue banking business as people store tissues when they are young for making stem cells if they should need them later. This would be necessary because, as Thomson explained, chronologically young cells are more efficient at being reprogrammed than cells from older animals. One can envision that it could become routine at birth to store placental tissue, the youngest tissue readily available that is genetically identical to the newborn baby.

As exciting as the science was at the conference, there remain some problems to deal with before these stem cells are used in the clinic. First, as with ESCs, undifferentiated iPCs form tumors called teratomas. Therefore, we need to develop a fail-safe way to completely separate or incapacitate contaminating stem cells from the functional tissues grown from them before we put them into patients. According to an article I posted here earlier, the FDA recently convened a meeting to grapple with this problem in anticipation that clinical trials will begin in the near future.

Next, even if we can use stem cells to regenerate damaged tissues, we still need to continue research into the causes of degenerative diseases because simply replacing the dying cells without dealing with what causes them to die may only be a short term fix.

Potential ethical issues may still arise

Finally, and potentially an explosive issue, there remains an ethical question regarding iPCs that no one seems to have addressed. When a mature cell is reprogrammed, how far back does it go? Do iPCs only have the potential to develop into different body tissues, or can an iPC, if given the chance, form an embryo? Of course, if the iPC cells are more like fertilized eggs than stem cells, then all bets are off--the ethical issues will arise again.

I asked both Svendson and Thompson about this and both admitted that this idea had not been tested. Svendson even owned up that no one in the field wants to test it. They do not want to know the answer because it could be very inconvenient.

My prediction

Carl Gulbrandsen, Director of the Wisconsin Alumni Foundation, shared with me that reading Thomson’s paper on reprogramming adult cells to derive embryonic iPCs made him “tingle”. Mr. Gulbrandsen does not seem to be the tingly type, but his response to Thomson’s results was not inappropriate—they are that amazing and significant.

As a scientist, I have learned to be cautious about making predictions. However, I venture one prediction here that I believe has a very good chance of being realized: Professor Jamie Thomson will, in the not-to-distant future, be awarded the Nobel prize for his outstanding work that has created a whole new field of stem cell biology and invigorated the practice of regenerative medicine. While I am at it, you can bet that he will share the prize with Ian Wilmut.

Any takers?
________________________________________________________________________________________

This post was first published in-part by the Wisconsin Technology Network News

 

© 2008 Steven S. Clark, PhD. Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, Steven S. Clark, nor other authors, do not assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any excerpts from any article must credit BioScience Biz.

March 29, 2008

Predicting success in emerging biotechnology, Part 2. By Steve Clark

An investor recently asked me to compare the technology behind two early-stage biotech companies he was thinking of investing in. Both companies had novel therapeutic products at similar stages of development and the investor wanted to know which company’s product had the greater chance of success.

In an earlier article on this topic, I cautioned that predicting success of a technology is impossible. Therefore, in my analyses, I look for scientific limitations that might portend failure of a new technology.

Here, I illustrate another way to evaluate emerging biotechnology—science-focused market analysis. I contend that one needs to assess the market, not only from a business perspective, but also with a scientifically critical eye in order to fully appraise the risks of a new technology. Let me use a real example to illustrate how this works.

Two companies, A and B, are at similar stages of developing novel therapies for treating cancer of the prostate (CaP). Prostate cancer is very difficult to treat successfully; hence, enormous efforts are underway to develop better therapeutic options. The competition is stiff.

In order to fully appreciate the market potential for these products, we first need to understand the biology and treatment of CaP.

Treatment options are limited for CaP 

Line_drawing_2 When CaP is detected, usually surgery or radiation is used first to reduce the size of the cancer (step 1 in the figure). At this stage, cancer growth depends on androgens, or male hormones produced in the testes; therefore, after surgery or radiation, men are often chemically castrated in order to retard the re-growth of any remaining cancer cells (step 2 in the figure). Despite this treatment, the cancer invariably returns and slowly progresses to a more aggressive malignancy.

CaP progression obviously means that androgen depletion no longer prevents the tumor from growing. The first indication of cancer progression is increasing blood levels of PSA (prostate specific antigen), a protein which is secreted by prostate cells. At this stage in the disease, there is no therapeutic option and one simply waits (“watchful-waiting”, step 3 in the figure) until the slowly re-growing cancer develops into end-stage carcinoma (step 4). Increasingly, patients with end-stage CaP are treated with chemotherapy, but this offers minimal, if any, results.

Experimental therapies of the two companies

Because CaP is so difficult to treat, many experimental therapies are in various stages of development and mostly target the end-stage metastatic disease. It is in this milieu that companies A and B are working to develop new therapies.

Company A is developing a naturally occurring biological product that enters cells and kills them by preventing gene expression. For unknown reasons, the product selectively kills advanced-stage cancer cells and not normal cells. Therefore, this product is targeted for potential treatment of end-stage CaP.

This experimental product has stiff competition from the plethora of other experimental cancer therapies under development. Nevertheless, it is likely that multiple therapies that have different mechanisms of action will be needed to successfully treat end-stage CaP. This means that the uniqueness of Company A’s product is a significant advantage; however, the stiff competition also means that, in order to marketable, this product will need to show as good or better efficacy and side-effects than other current and emerging therapies.

Company B has two novel therapies in development. The first therapy is derived from a natural dietary product that surprisingly blocks the androgen receptor. This drug is targeted toward prostate cancer patients who have undergone androgen deprivation therapy, but show rising PSA levels without having yet developed androgen-independent metastatic cancer. Currently, “watchful waiting” (step 3) is the only clinical option available for these patients. So, this product is designed to throw another punch at the slowly growing cancer before it achieves full blown androgen-independence.

The second product that Company B is developing is based on careful understanding of the cell biochemistry that drives CaP progression. When androgen binds to its cellular receptor, many things happen in addition to stimulating growth of prostate cells. It is believed that a specific “side-activity” of androgen stimulation is responsible for turning normal prostate cells into cancer cells. Furthermore, this side-activity also likely drives the progression of CaP from a slow growing tumor to end-stage cancer.

Company B’s second product blocks this cancer-inducing side-activity without affecting any other activity of androgen stimulation. For this reason, the drug is targeted for patients who have not yet undergone androgen depletion therapy. The goal is to retard early tumor progression and avoid the androgen depletion regimen which comes with considerable side-effects.

Which technology do you invest in?

All things being equal (or at least as much as possible between two different early-stage biotech companies), the decision comes down to predicting which technology has a better chance at success, or as I wrote previously, the least chance of failure. Here, science-focused market analysis tells you that the product under development by Company A, while unique and with good potential, nevertheless will compete with current therapies as well as with the many new experimental therapies in development.

In contrast, the products being developed by Company B specifically target stages in CaP where there is no good therapeutic option currently available. The competition for these products is negligible, which means that even if they are marginally effective or have side effects, there likely will be a significant market for them.

The unique biomedical niche targeted by company B’s products means that the significant risk factors company A faces due to competition are not likely to be a problem for Company B. Hence, market analysis through a scientific lens favors investing in company B over company A.

The example described here provides a good illustration of how scientific understanding of emerging biotechnology can add significantly to your market analysis. So, don’t forget to include your technical advisor when doing market research.

This article was first published in part in the Wisconsin Tecnology Network News
_____________________________________________________________________________________

© 2008 Steven S. Clark, PhD. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, neither Steven S. Clark, nor other authors,  assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any excerpts from any article must credit BioScience Biz.

 

February 16, 2008

Genetic Basis for Cancer: Oncogenes, by Steve Clark

Chromoimage2 The first clues that cancer has a genetic basis came from several independent observations. In 1914, the German cell biologist, Theodor Boveri, noticed that cancer cells often carried abnormal chromosomes as seen through the microscope. However, the fact that a specific chromosome abnormality was routinely associated with a particular type of cancer did not come until 1973 when Janet Rowley showed that chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) cells carried a chromosome translocation in which the ends of chromosomes 9 and 22 were exchanged. Several other studies also showed that certain types of cancer could run in families, suggesting that the risk for specific cancers can be inherited. Then, in 1981 the laboratories of Robert Weinberg and Geoff Cooper showed that DNA from a human bladder cancer cell line could cause nonmalignant cells in tissue culture to become cancerous. This was the first direct demonstration that genes can cause cancer. A cancer-causing gene was called an “oncogene”.

Since the Weinberg and Cooper observations, dozens of oncogenes have been identified and characterized. It is now clear that oncogenes represent normal cellular genes that are either aberrantly expressed or functionally abnormal. Such normal cellular genes, called “proto-oncogenes, can be “activated” to become oncogenes through a variety of different molecular mechanisms.

RNA tumor viruses lead to the discovery of cellular proto-oncogenes.

In 1911, Peyton Rous reported that a class of RNA virus can cause tumors in animals. These RNA tumor viruses, called “retroviruses,” carry an RNA genome that, once inside a cell, is reverse-copied into DNA, which then is inserted randomly into the host cell’s genome. Some retroviruses are slow to cause tumors. After they infect and spread to a large number of cells, the  DNA copy of the viral genome, by chance, might integrate into a host cell’s DNA near or within a normal gene that plays an important role in cell growth. If this viral integration disrupts the expression or structure of the normal cellular gene, it could induce abnormal growth signals that cause this single cell to develop into cancer.

In contrast to retroviruses that take a long time to cause cancer, other retroviruses cause tumors to appear very quickly. In these cases, during the process of reverse-copying the viral RNA into DNA, RNA in the cells that is expressed from normal cellular genes is sometimes mistakenly copied into the viral genome. If this captured cellular RNA is from a gene that is important in stimulating cell growth, the recombined virus can transfer the captured cellular gene to many other cells where it then causes abnormal growth stimulation leading to the rapid development of a cancer.

Through molecular cloning, many genes that are activated by the insertion of retroviruses into the genome, or that are captured by reverse-copying of cellular RNA into the viral genome have been identified and characterized. Almost three-dozen such retroviral oncogenes and their related cellular proto-oncogenes are now known.

Proto-oncogenes can be activated in the absence of retroviruses.

The first human oncogene, called Ras, ultimately was identified in the Weinberg and Cooper experiments mentioned above. We now know that the protein product of the Ras gene serves as a “switch” that turns growth signals on and off. Normally, the activity of this Ras switch is tightly regulated in cells. However, single mutations (or “point mutations”) in critical sites of the Ras gene cause the Ras growth “switch” to remain constantly on, and this leads to cancer. Thus, some normal proto-oncogenes can become oncogenes by random genetic point mutation in cells.

Oncogenes also can be activated by structural changes in chromosomes known as “amplifications” or “translocations.” DNA amplification increases by several-fold a specific region of a chromosome. This can produce many copies of any genes that lie in the amplified region. If one of the genes in an amplified region is important in driving cell growth, its overexpression due to amplification could lead to uncontrolled cell proliferation and cancer. In the case of chromosome translocations, a proto-oncogene on one chromosome might be moved to another chromosome resulting in the gene’s structural alteration and/or aberrant expression. For example, in the translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 that is found in CML, a proto-oncogene on chromosome 9, called c-Abl, is moved to chromosome 22 where it is fused to another gene called Bcr. Normally, c-Abl is a nuclear “tyrosine kinase,” which is an enzyme that adds a phosphate molecule to proteins at an amino acid called tyrosine. Phosphorylation on tyrosine regulates the function of certain proteins that play important roles in stimulating cell proliferation. The fusion of Bcr and c-Abl genes creates an oncogene, called Bcr/Abl, which makes a protein with highly elevated tyrosine kinase activity and that is found in the cytoplasm instead of the nucleus. These changes in the activity and cellular location of the c-Abl proto-oncogene lead to chronic myelogenous leukemia.

Oncogenes cause cancer by “short-circuiting” normal growth control mechanisms.

Normal cell growth is controlled by the availability of growth factors, which are hormone-like molecules that bind to specific receptors that usually sit on the surface of cells. When this happens, the receptor initiates a signaling cascade from the cell membrane to the nucleus that ultimately tells the cell to divide. Many of the gene products in such signaling pathways are proto-oncogenes that can become oncogenes when activated by the different mechanisms described above. When a signaling proto-oncogene is activated, the signaling cascade becomes “short circuited” and cells behave as if they are continually in the presence of their growth factor.

For example, the v-sis oncogene from a monkey cancer virus known as the simian sarcoma retrovirus (SSV) comes from a gene that encodes platelet-derived growth factor, which stimulates growth of different cell types. Cells infected with SSV are, therefore, constantly bathed in the v-sis growth factor and stimulated to proliferate. Other oncogenes are mutated growth factor receptors where mutation leaves the receptor permanently “on” even in the absence of the growth factor. Two examples of mutated receptor oncogenes include v-erbB found in a bird retrovirus that causes various cancers and v-fms, which is carried by a mouse retrovirus that causes leukemia.

Inside the cell, components of the signaling cascade that connect cell surface growth receptors to the nucleus also can cause cancer when their activity is altered by mutation or overexpression. The Ras proto-oncogene that was mentioned above is an example of a signal-transmitting molecule that is found inside cells that can be mutated into an oncogene.

In the nucleus, normal growth signals trigger the expression and activity of yet other proteins, called “transcription factors,” that regulate gene expression needed for cell growth. Many of these transcription factors also are proto-oncogenes. Two examples of proto-oncogene transcription factors are c-Fos and c-Jun, both of which were first identified as retroviral oncogenes.

“Tumor suppressor genes” inhibit the development of cancer.

In 1983, Raymond White and Webster Cavanee, using a technique called “chromosome mapping,” learned that the loss of a small segment of human chromosome 13 was a recurring feature in retinoblastoma, a rare childhood cancer of the retina that can run in families. In this deleted region of chromosome 13 they discovered a gene that they named RB (for retinoblastoma), both copies of which were inactivated either by DNA deletion or by a mutation within the gene that destroyed its function. Interestingly, such inactivation of both copies of the RB gene occurs in about forty percent of all human cancers.

Oncogene_figure_3 The product of the normal RB gene functions as a brake to cell division, so that loss of this brake can lead to unregulated cell growth. Another gene that also is associated with cancer when both copies are inactivated by mutation is the p53 gene, which acts as a “guardian” of the genome. This gene product induces a cell suicide program called “apoptosis” in cells with damaged DNA. Normally, this protects the body from cells whose DNA is damaged. However, loss of p53 activity allows cells with damaged DNA to grow and pass DNA mutations to their daughter cells, thereby contributing to the growth of tumors. A third type of gene that plays a role in cancer when it is inactivated is NF1. This gene encodes a protein that turns off the Ras growth signal mentioned above. Thus, loss of NF1 function is another way that the Ras growth signal can be left constantly on.

Since the discovery of RB, researchers have identified several additional genes in which both copies are inactivated due to mutation or chromosomal deletion. These genes normally block cell growth and prevent tumors from growing; hence they are called “tumor suppressor” genes. Since both copies of these genes need to be inactive in order to release cancer cells from growth inhibition, tumor suppressor genes act recessively. This contrasts to the oncogenes described above, where only one copy needs to be activated in order to promote cancer. Therefore, in contrast to tumor suppressor genes, oncogenes act in a dominant fashion.

Cancer usually arises after multiple genetic “hits.”

In 1971, Alfred Knudson, Jr. proposed that retinoblastoma resulted from at least two separate genetic defects. In families with a high risk of retinoblastoma, the first defect was inherited, while the second occurred sometime during childhood. This came to be known as Knudson’s “two-hit theory”. We now know that the “first hit” is the inheritance of a copy of chromosome 13 that carries a small deletion in the region that carries RB. The “second hit” occurs when a random mutation inactivates the remaining copy of RB in a single cell making the cell susceptible to unregulated proliferation.

Subsequent research has shown that most, if not all, cancer arises from multiple genetic events or “hits.” Bert Vogelstein and coworkers first showed this in colon cancer in the late 1980s. Colon cancer begins with a pre-cancerous stage, called a benign polyp. Left untreated, this will progress through successively more cancerous stages until it becomes an aggressive carcinoma. Vogelstein’s group found that the progression of colon cancer through these different stages was associated with the acquisition of genetic changes in oncogenes such as Ras, as well as in a number of different tumor suppressor genes including p53. Together, sequential activation of different oncogenes along with inactivation of various tumor suppressor genes drives the step-wise progression of pre-cancerous cells to highly cancerous tumors.



Bibliography:

Bishop, J. Michael. “Oncogenes.” Scientific American 246 (1983):80-92.

Cavenee, Webster K., White, Raymond L. “The Genetic Basis of Cancer.” Scientific
American March (1995):72-79.

Croce, Carlo M., Klein, G. “Chromosome Translocations and Human
Cancer.” Scientific American 252 (1985):54-60.

Varmus, Harold. “Retroviruses.” Science 240 (1988):1427-1435.

Weinberg, Robert A. “A Molecular Basis of Cancer.” Scientific American
249 (1983):126-142.

-- “Tumor Suppressor Genes.” Science 254 (1991):1138-1146.


This article was originally published in Genetics, vol 3, R. Robinson, ed.  2003.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D., a former professor and medical researcher at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine provides consulting services for investors and biotechnology companies.  He encourages contributions to this page.  Email him with story pitches.
________________________________________________________________________________________

© 2008 Steven S. Clark, PhD. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, neither Steven S. Clark, nor other authors,  assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any excerpts from any article must credit BioScience Biz.

 


February 11, 2008

Predicting Success of Early Stage Biotechnology--Part 1, by Steve Clark

Nautilus After a session at the recent Wisconsin Early Stage Symposium, I was talking with an investor from Indiana and explained to him that I analyze biotechnology. He then asked me the $64,000 question every investor would like to know--how do I determine if an early stage biotechnology will be successful?

It is a great question but, I submit, the wrong one to ask because there are no unambiguous or concrete criteria one can use to determine if a promising technology will succeed scientifically. On the other hand, one can look for warning flags that provide a measure of the risk of failure of that technology. Therefore, a better question to ask is this: are there reasons that a particular technology might not succeed. By asking the question this way, you avoid the impossible task of trying to predict success, and instead you look to reduce risk, thereby, increasing your chance of success by investing in technologies with lower chance of failure.

Invariably, when considering a promising technology at this early stage of development, the investor is presented with very exciting laboratory and maybe animal studies. Also, the inventor invariably claims that his product has tremendous market potential and there may be a lot of press hype around this (remember interferon?).

The savvy investor does his due diligence and makes his own assessment of the market potential, the business plan, company structure, etc. All of these are certainly important considerations, but even with the best structure, financing and business plan in place, the whole enterprise ultimately rests on the success of the technology, which, at this stage, is not fully tested.   

Let me turn to a case study to illustrate the technological pitfalls that can derail even the most promising science.

A case study of an anti-cancer therapy

Several years ago, a colleague published very exciting results showing that a simple plant oil—the oil that makes oranges taste “orangey”--could both, prevent and cure, advanced breast cancer in rats. Better yet, the compound, perillyl alcohol, or POH, showed no toxicity in the animals. POH already was approved for human consumption as a food flavoring, was cheap to produce and readily available, so there was high hope that POH would become the first cancer chemotherapy and chemoprevention agent devoid of side effects.

Laboratory studies showed that POH stops cancer cells from growing and causes them to self-destruct. Studies in the rat breast cancer model confirmed this and further revealed that normal tissues were not affected. Other research suggested that POH interfered with a biochemical pathway that often is abnormal in human breast cancer. All of these pieces of evidence fit into a convincingly coherent picture of an exciting and novel anti-cancer agent. Based on these findings, clinical trials began.

The early phase I trial revealed that in humans, POH is metabolized precisely as it was in rats and also confirmed that POH was non-toxic in humans. These results added to the enthusiasm for the product.

Phase II trials were then undertaken in attempt to treat human breast cancer. In these trials, POH showed no anti-cancer effect at all and it was removed from the experimental therapeutic pipeline. What went wrong?

What are the lessons to be learned?

The first lesson from the POH failure is this: It always is risky to extrapolate experimental results from rodents to humans. Simply because a rodent malignancy occurs in the same tissue as human cancer does not mean that it is the same type of cancer in both species. Rodent cancer models, like the one employed in the POH experiments, use genetically homogeneous inbred animals and the experimental cancer arises from a single, artificial genetic cause. In contrast, human cancers occur in a genetically diverse population and are initiated by many different genetic events. Thus, there is significant risk of failure when human trials are based on the results of a single animal disease model.

Second, the mechanism of action of POH was insufficiently established before the clinical trials were initiated. The data were not adequately repeated and were weak to begin with. In fact, while the clinical trials were underway, another lab found that POH actually affects a completely different biochemical mechanism than originally believed—the original results were wrong. Importantly, the correct mechanism of POH anti-cancer activity may only be relevant for a small subset of human breast cancers and more important in other malignancies.

Since the proper mechanism of action of POH was not accurately established and the rat cancer model was inadequate to generalize to human breast cancer, the human trials were not targeted for the appropriate malignancy and, thus, doomed to fail.

Yet, the risks of failure were discernable before the POH clinical trials began—critical laboratory data were weak, the rat cancer model was too narrowly focused and untested, and the clinical trials were initiated too early. These warning flags could have been picked up by an objective reviewer who understood the science.

I sometimes am called upon to evaluate the science behind products and technologies at a similar stage of development as POH was when it entered clinical trials—that is, the technology shows great promise based on lab and animal studies, but no one knows if it will work in humans. This is a high-risk, make-or-break juncture in the long process of taking a science idea to market. 

The difficulty in identifying the warning flags at this critical stage of development is that each technology will have its own unique warning flags that portend possible failure.  Furthermore, there likely are as many or more different types of warning flags as there are technologies to be developed. 

Therefore, the first, and obvious, requirement in any technology analysis is to seek the input from a professional who has good knowledge of the science. But, doesn’t this beg the question, who has better understanding of the technology than the scientists who developed it and aren’t they already telling you it is sound?

This brings me to the second, and equally important requirement for any technology analysis—it must be objective. 

An objective, informed opinion is critical for thorough due diligence and I submit this is almost impossible to do by a non-scientist, or even by a scientist who is invested in the success of the technology. It is as hard to realistically see flaws in one’s pet project as in one’s own children.

Therefore, for thorough due diligence, make sure to obtain technical analysis from a knowledgeable scientist who has no ties to the technology or the company. And be sure to ask that objective expert to evaluate the risk of failure, rather than the chance for success.

This article was originally published in the Wisconsin Technology Network Newsletter

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D., a former professor and medical researcher at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine provides consulting services for investors and biotechnology companies.  He encourages contributions to this page.  Email him with story pitches.
________________________________________________________________________________________

© 2008 Steven S. Clark, PhD. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, neither Steven S. Clark, nor other authors,  assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.

Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any excerpts from any article must credit BioScience Biz.