Atlas!

This is Part 2 of the article on RaNA Therapeutics that we began on March 29, 2012.

Jeannie Lee’s research and RaNA’s technology platform

Jeannie Lee’s laboratory focuses on the study of the mechanism of X-chromosome inactivation in mammals. In X-chromosome inactivation, one of the two copies of the X chromosome present in the cells of female mammals is inactivated. The inactive X chromosome is silenced by packaging into transcriptionally inactive heterochromatin.  X-chromosome inactivation results in dosage compensation, the process by which cells of males and females have the same level of expression of X-chromosome genes, even though female cells have two X chromosomes and male cells have only one. In placental mammals such as mice and humans, the choice of which X chromosome will be inactivated is random, but once an X chromosome is inactivated it will remain inactive throughout the lifetime of the cell and its descendants.

The Lee laboratory has focused on genes encoded by the X-chromosome whose actions coordinate X-chromosome inactivation. These genes  are contained in the 100 kilobase long X-inactivation center (Xic). One of these genes, Xist, encodes the lncRNA XIST, which as discussed in Part 1 of this article inactivates an X-chromosome by spreading along the X chromosome and recruiting the silencing factor PRC2. XIST is regulated in cis by TSIX, an antisense version of XIST which works to keep the active X-chromosome active. Tsix is in turn regulated by Xite (X-Inactivation intergenic transcription element), an upstream locus that harbors an enhancer that enables the persistence of TSIX expression on the active X chromosome. The mechanism by which Xite acts (including whether it acts via its RNA transcripts) is not clear. Xite and Tsix appear to regulate pairing between the two X chromosomes in a female cell, and determine which X chromosome will be chosen for inactivation. Several other recently discovered genes in the region of the Xic, which work via lncRNAs, also serve as regulators of XIST function. For example, the Rep A and Jpx genes, work via lncRNA transcripts to induce Xist. Thus Xist is controlled by positive and negative lncRNA-based switches–TSIX for the active X chromosome and JPX and REPA for the inactive X. Of these lncRNAs, REPA, XIST, and TSIX bind to and control PRC2.

In late 2010, the Lee laboratory published an article in Molecular Cell in which the researchers identified a genome-wide pool of over 9000 lncRNA transcripts that interact with PRC2 in mouse ES cells. Many of these transcripts have sequences that correspond to potentially medically-important loci, including dozens of imprinted loci (i.e., loci that are epigenetically modified such that only the paternal or maternal allele is expressed), hundreds of oncogene and tumor suppressor loci, and multiple genes that are important in development and show differential chromatin regulation in stem cells and in differentiated cells. The researchers obtained evidence that at least in one case, an RNAs works to recruit PRC2 to a disease-relevant genes, similar to PRC2 recruitment by XIST and HOTAIR. This case of specific PRC2 recruitment has not been previously known, suggesting that the researchers’ methodology could be used to discover new examples of PRC2 recruitment by lncRNAs.

Some of the PRC2-associated lncRNAs identified in the Molecular Cell report may be potential therapeutic targets and/or biomarkers. Overexpression of PCR2 proteins have been linked to various types of cancer, including metastatic prostate and breast cancer, and cancers  of the colon, breast, and liver. Pharmacological inhibition of PRC2-mediated gene repression was found to induce apoptosis in several cancer cell lines in vitro, but not in various types of normal cells. Induction of apoptosis in this system is dependent on reactivation of genes that had been repressed by PRC2. There is also evidence that PRC2-mediated gene repression may be linked to the maintenance of the stem-cell properties of cancer stem cells. These results suggest that at least in some cases, inhibition of PRC2-mediated gene repression–including via targeting lncRNAs that recruit PRC2 to critical genes–is a potential strategy for treating various types of cancer.

RaNA’s R&D strategy

Not much information is available about RaNA’s strategy.  However, according to the January 2012 Mass High Tech article, RaNA Therapeutics has licensed technology from Mass General Hospital based on Dr. Lee’s research. The company has also filed several patent applications, some of which are described as being very broad. This includes patent applications on the existence and method of use of thousands of lncRNA targets. However, Dr. Lee’s currently include only three items involving the X-chromosome inactivation system or TERC. Presumably, the patent applications mentioned in the Mass High Tech article will be published at the end of the 18-month publication period for U.S. patent applications.

According to the Mass High Tech article, RaNA is in the process of narrowing down the diseases it will initially focus on. Likely areas will include genetic diseases, including diseases that result from haploinsufficiency. In haploinsufficiency, one allele of a gene is nonfunctional, so all of the protein coded by the gene is made from the other allele. However, this results in insufficient levels of the protein to produce a normal phenotype. RaNA intends to use its technology to increase expression of the functional gene, resulting in a adequate dosage of the protein for a normal phenotype.

RaNA intends to choose one indication out of a short list of 20 diseases for internal R&D, and to seek collaborations for other indications. Dr. Krieg says that he hopes to have a collaboration by the end of 2012, and also to have Investigational New Drug (IND)-enabling safety studies on its internal drug candidate by the end of the year as well.

As one might expect, RaNA will target the appropriate lncRNAs using oligonucleotides, similar to how RNAi companies target mRNAs. Dr. Krieg, an oligonucleotide therapeutic development veteran, recruited some of his old oligonucleotide team from Pfizer into RaNA, according to a Fierce Biotech article. Thus Dr. Krieg and his team can quickly get up and running in designing and testing oligonucleotide therapeutics, once RaNA selects the targets for its initial focus.

In the Mass High Tech article, Dr. Krieg says that he believes that “oligonucleotides are on the cusp of being recognized as the third leg of drug development,” along with small-molecule and protein therapeutics. However, as we discussed in our August 22, 2011 article on this blog, oligonucleotide drug development, as exemplified by RNAi and microRNA-based therapeutics, has run into several technological hurdles, especially those involving drug delivery. The August 2011 article cites an editorial by Dr. Krieg, in which he voices his optimism despite these hurdles.

Nevertheless, large pharmaceutical companies and investors have been moving away from the oligonucleotide field. This is exemplified by Alnylam’s January 20, 2012 restructuring, which cut one-third of its work force and focused the company on two of its Phase 1 programs. Having exhausted its ability to capture major Big Phama licensing and R&D deals, Alnylam has had to become a normal early-2012 biotech company and focus its strategy. (However, Alnylam did a $86.9 million public offering in February 2012.)

The emergence of RaNA, and its $20.7 million funding, thus swims against the tide of the general pessimism about oligonucleotide therapeutics of Big Pharmas, investors, and stock analysts. However, at least some oligonucleotide therapeutics will eventually emerge onto the market, and lncRNA regulation is likely to be crucial to many disease pathways. RaNA is thus the pioneering company in this field.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

XIST Source: Alexbateman http://bit.ly/GZNTZg

On January 18, 2012, start-up company RaNA Therapeutics (Cambridge, MA) emerged from stealth mode with 20.7 million in cash. The Series A venture funding was co-led by Atlas Venture, SR One, and Monsanto, with participation of Partners Innovation Fund.

RaNA will work on developing a technology platform that involves targeting long noncoding RNA (lncRNA), in order to selectively upregulate gene expression.

Arthur Krieg, M.D. will serve as RaNA’s President and CEO. He is the former Chief Scientific Officer of the now-closed Pfizer Oligonucleotide Therapeutics Unit, who later became an Entrepreneur in Residence at Atlas Venture (Cambridge, MA). Dr. Krieg was mentioned in two of our previous Biopharmconsortium Blog articles, dated February 15, 2011 and August 22, 2011.

Atlas quietly nurtured RaNA while working to complete the Series A venture round. According to a January 18, 2012 article in Mass High Tech, the company plans to move into about 9,000 square feet of space “somewhere in Cambridge” in early 2012.  RaNA has approximately a dozen employees.

According to the Mass High Tech article, RaNA’s platform is based on technology developed by scientific founder Dr. Jeannie Lee (Massachusetts General Hospital/Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston MA).  Drs. Lee and Krieg and Atlas Ventures are cofounders of RaNA.

This is Part 1 of our discussion of RaNA Therapeutics.

RaNA and “junk DNA”

RaNA’s focus is related to what has traditionally been called “junk DNA”. As shown by work on the Human Genome Project and other genomics studies, only about 2-3 percent of the human genome consists of protein-encoding genes. Genomics researchers had not been able to identify a function for most of the remaining 97-98% of the human genome. This gave rise to the idea that these sequences consisted of parasitic DNA sequences that had no function whatsoever. Most researchers thus called these sequences “junk DNA”. Some of the leading lights of the genomics field gave presentations in which they dismissed this DNA as “junk”, and they even proposed models for how this “junk DNA” might accumulate during evolution. Then they would go on to discuss the “interesting” 2-3 percent.

However, the “junk DNA” concept was not really established science, but a hypothesis. I–among a few others–would call these sequences “DNA of unknown function”.

In more recent years, many researchers showed that at least the vast majority of DNA of unknown function was transcribed. Then researchers found a function for a relatively small percentage of these sequences–they are precursors of microRNAs and other small regulatory RNAs. These RNAs are related to the phenomenon of RNA interference (RNAi), which has been the subject of much basic research, including the Nobel Prize-winning research of Drs. Andrew Fire and Craig Mello. RNAi is the basis for various therapeutic RNAi drug discovery and development efforts at such companies as Alnylam, Silence Therapeutics, Quark Phamaceuticals, Dicerna, and Santaris, as well as several large pharmaceutical companies.

The majority of DNA sequences of unknown function, however, are transcribed into lncRNA. As exemplified by the first article [“Quantity or quality?”, by Monika S. Kowalczyk and Douglas R. Higgs (University of Oxford)] in a point/counterpoint Forum published in the 16 February 2012 issue of Nature, many researchers postulate that at least most of these transcripts are nonfunctional. Transcription of these sequences might be, for example, at a low level, as the result of experimental artifacts or of exposure of sequences to the transcriptional machinery due to changes in chromatin during such processes as cell division or expression of nearby genes. This point of view moves the “junk DNA” hypothesis to the RNA level–now one might speak of “junk RNA”.

However, in the second article in the Nature Forum [“Patience is a virtue”, by Thomas R. Gingeras (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)], the author counsels “patience” in carefully unraveling the function, one by one, of each noncoding RNA (ncRNA) transcript. According to Dr. Gingeras’ article, there are currently some 161,000 human transcripts, 53% of which are ncRNAs. About 2% of these ncRNAs are precursors to microRNAs. Approximately 10% of the transcripts are lncRNAs that map to intergenic and intronic regions, and many of these transcripts have been implicated in regulation — both of locally and at a distance— of developmentally important genes. Another 16% of the ncRNAs are transcripts of pseudogenes — genes that appear to have lost their original functions during evolution. Some of the pseudogene transcripts have been shown to regulate gene expression by acting as decoys for microRNAs. Despite this progress in assigning functions to ncRNAs, no function has yet been found for the majority of these transcripts. However, these are early days in the ncRNA field, so patience and openness to new discoveries is advisable.

The same 16 February 2012 issue of Nature contains a “Nature Insight” supplement on “Regulatory RNA”. Of particular interest with respect to the functions of lncRNAs is the review by Mitchell Guttman (Broad Institute and MIT, Cambridge MA) and John Rinn (Broad Institute and Harvard, Cambridge MA), entitled “Modular regulatory principles of large non-coding RNAs”. Among the lncRNAs discussed in that review are the X-inactive specific transcript (XIST) (see the figure above) and the telomerase RNA component (TERC). Both of these lncRNAs were identified and their functions determined in the 1990s–XIST in 1991  and TERC in 1995. XIST is expressed exclusively from inactive X chromosomes and is required for X inactivation in mammals. TERC is an essential RNA component of telomerase, the enzyme that replicates chromosome ends (telomeres). At the same time as the functions of XIST and TERC were beginning to be unraveled, most researchers were continuing to dismiss ncDNA as “junk”. Should they have known better?

The Guttman and Rinn review discusses several other lncRNAs with known, important functions, all of which were discovered since the pioneering work on XIST and TERC. Among the genes that encode these lncRNAs are HOTAIR and HOTTIP, which affect expression of the HOXD and HOXA gene family, respectively. HOX genes are a superfamily of evolutionarily conserved genes that are involved the determination of the basic structure of an organism. They encode transcription factors that regulate target genes by binding to specific DNA sequences in enhancers. The large intergenic non-coding RNA-RoR (lincRNA-RoR) modulates reprogramming of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells, which were discussed in earlier articles on this blog). The lncRNA NRON regulates transcription factors of the NFAT (nuclear factor of activated T-cells) family, which are involved in regulating the immune response, as well as in the development of cardiac and skeletal muscle, and of the nervous system. These genes have also been implicated in breast cancer, especially in tumor cell invasion and metastasis.

A common theme in the function of several lncRNAs, as highlighted in the Guttman and Rinn review, is association of the lncRNA with a chromatin-regulatory protein complex. The lncRNA serves to guide the regulatory protein complex to specific regions of chromatin. The protein complex then modifies specific histones in the chromatin regions, resulting in silencing of target genes.

In particular, HOTAIR serves as a molecular scaffold that binds to two protein complexes. A 5′ domain of HOTAIR binds polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2), and a 3′ domain of HOTAIR binds the CoREST–LSD1 complex. This enables the targeting of PRC2 and LSD1 to chromatin for coupled histone H3 lysine 27 methylation by PRC2 and histone H3 lysine 4 demethylation by LSD1. Both are required for proper repression of HOX genes.

XIST has at least two discrete domains, one involved in silencing (RepA) and the other in localization (RepC) of the XIST molecule on the X chromosome. The silencing domain RepA binds to PRC2, and the localization domain RepC binds to the YY1 protein and heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein U (hnRNP U).

The cases of HOTAIR and XIST are examples of how lncRNAs may function as molecular scaffolds of regulatory protein complexes. This may be general phenomenon, since a recent study by Drs. Guttman and Rinn and their colleagues indicates that about 30% of lincRNAs in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells are associated with multiple regulatory complexes. In this study, the researchers found that RNAi knockdown of dozens of lincRNAs causes either exit from the pluripotent state or upregulation of specific differentiation programs. Thus lincRNAs appear to have important roles in the circuitry controlling the pluripotent state of ES cells, and in commitment to differentiation into specific lineages.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Salinomycin

On November 3, 2011, Cambridge MA biotech firm Verastem announced that it was filing a prospectus for an initial public offering (IPO). At that time, the company was 15 months old.

Verastem is led by Christoph Westphal, MD, PhD, a founder and the former CEO of Sirtris and a veteran entrepreneur and venture capitalist. The IPO has been underwritten by UBS, Leerink Swann, Lazard Capital Markets, Oppenheimer & Co., and Rodman & Renshaw.

On January 27, 2012, Fierce Biotech reported that Verastem had announced the previous night that its IPO raised $55 million from the sale of 5.5 million shares at $10 apiece. This price fell exactly in the middle of its expected $9 to $11 price range, and the company had even increased the offering by a million shares over what had originally been planned.

On the same day, Verastem’s stock opened at $11 a share on the NASDAQ, up from its initial public offering price of $10.

Verastem not only has Christoph Westphal as its Chairman and CEO, but is also based on science from eminent MIT researchers Robert Weinberg, Ph.D. and Eric Lander, Ph.D., and has several other well-respected academic researchers (including Nobelist Phillip Sharp, Ph.D.) plus biotech industry drug discoverers Julian Adams, Ph.D. (MIllennium’s Velcade) and Roger Tung, Ph.D. (Vertex’ Lexiva and Agenerase) on its Scientific Advisory Board. The company has had considerable fundraising success prior to its IPO, including raising $32 million in venture capital  in July 2011.

However, Verastem has not one lone drug in human clinical trials, its most advanced compounds are in the preclinical stage, and the company does not plan to file an IND until 2013! Thus Verastem has successfully gone public, in an era in which even most private biotech companies with drugs in late-stage clinical trials are finding it very difficult to do so, despite its lack of any clinical-stage drugs.

As noted in the Fierce Biotech article, Dr. Westphal as well as other venture capital funders of Verastem agreed to buy up to $16.3 million of the IPO. This in part explains the success of the IPO. As also noted by Fierce Biotech, with over 19 million common shares outstanding, the offering valued Verastem at $192 million.

We discussed Verastem in our August 2, 2011 Biopharmonsortium Blog article entitled “Development of personalized therapies for deadly women’s cancers”. Verastem focuses on discovery and development of drugs to target cancer stem cells. Its technology is based on a strategy for screening for compounds that specifically target cancer stem cells, developed by Drs. Weinberg, Lander, Piyush Gupta (MIT and Broad Institute) and their colleagues.

Cancer stem cells are best known in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but their existence in other cancers (especially solid tumors) is controversial, as discussed in our article. Whether cancer stem cells are involved in the pathobiology of solid tumors (or a particular type of solid tumor) or not, the biology of the putative cancer stem cell phenotype can be important in certain subtypes of cancer. Cancer stem cells are characterized by the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). In the Cell paper, the researchers screened for compounds that specifically targeted breast cancer cells that had been experimentally induced into an EMT, and which as a result exhibited an increased resistance to standard chemotherapy drugs.   They identified the compound salinomycin (now being marketed as a generic veterinary antibiotic) as a drug that specifically targeted these cells, as well as putative cancer stem cells from patients.

As we discussed in our article, triple-negative (TN) breast cancer cannot be treated with standard receptor-targeting breast cancer therapeutics (e.g., tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, trastuzumab) but must be treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. It is generally more aggressive than other types of breast cancer, and even treatment with aggressive chemotherapy typically results in early relapse and metastasis. However, TN breast cancer includes two experimentally defined subtypes that have gene expression signatures related to the EMT. One or both of these subtypes might therefore be expected to be sensitive to compounds that specifically target putative breast cancer stem cells. This may be true whether the cancer stem cell hypothesis applies to TN breast cancer or not. Verastem is focusing on TN breast cancer as its first therapeutic target.

Verastem’s VS-507, a proprietary formulation of salinomycin, is being developed to treat TN breast cancer. The company is also screening for additional compounds, including New Chemical Entities (NCE) that can achieve stronger intellectual property protection than a salinomycin formulation. Verastem had not chosen a lead compound as of the middle of 2011. The company is now reported to be doing preclinical studies on three of its compounds, and also plans to create diagnostic tests to identify patients that could benefit from its treatments. (As we discussed in our article, biomarker-based tests will be critical in making such therapies work.)

As one can discern from our blog article, we are intrigued by Verastem’s approach to cancer treatment, and especially its approach to TN breast cancer. The science behind Verastem’s drug discovery strategy, developed by 2011 ASCO award-winning oncogene and cancer stem-cell pioneer Bob Weinberg, is very compelling. We would love to see Verastem’s therapeutic strategy succeed.

However, as virtually all pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D researchers well know, it is difficult to translate even the most compelling science developed by the most brilliant researchers into the clinic. Even therapeutic strategies with an excellent scientific rationale that have achieved proof of principle in the best animal models can result in clinical failure, especially with the first compound tested in proof-of-concept studies in human patients. The cancer stem cell hypothesis remains controversial. Moreover, diseases such as TN breast cancer are complicated, they may have mechanisms of resistance to a new experiential therapy that no one knows about, and our understanding of disease biology is limited.

Thus at least until Verastem’s therapies achieve proof of concept in human studies, purchase of Verastem stock is risky indeed. Moreover, there are other risks involved other than technical and clinical risk–especially competition for developing cancer stem cell-based therapies by other biotech/pharma companies. Venture capitalists (and certain knowledgeable individual investors and funds) are in the business of taking on high-risk investments for the sake of potential large rewards, but ordinary retail investors in the public markets are not. Therefore, it seems too early for Verastem to go public, even if it has founders and investors with enough clout to make an IPO successful.

Expert analysts in the IPO field, as stated in the Fierce Biotech article, are puzzled by the rationale for Verastem going public at this time. The financial news and services website “TheStreet.com” agrees. Our own sense of puzzlement is symbolized by the interobang (‽) in the title of this article.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

RNase/RNase inhibitor protein-protein interaction. Dcrjsr http://bit.ly/zRrlaz

We mentioned Forma Therapeutics in two previous articles on this blog. In one article, we focused on Forma’s R&D efforts in discovering small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions (PPIs).  The other article included a discussion on Forma’s efforts in cancer metabolism.

This month–January 2012–when the new year had barely started–Forma signed two new Big Pharma alliances, covering both of these areas.

On January 5, Forma announced that it had entered into an R&D collaboration with Boehringer Ingelheim, focusing on discovery and development of small molecule drugs to address oncology-relevant PPIs. Under the terms of the agreement, Forma will receive a total of $65 million in up-front payments and research funding, and could be eligible for up to $750 million in pre-commercial milestone payments for development programs resulting from the collaboration.

As with the Genentech deal in cancer metabolism that we discussed in an earlier article, the new Boehringer Ingelheim agreement provides Forma and its shareholders several opportunities to realize early return through assets developed under the collaboration. However, details of how this might occur were not disclosed. According to a January 6, 2012 article in BioWorld Today, flexibility and liquidity (without the need for a IPO or an acquisition) are importance goal of Forma’s business development activity in general. Nevertheless, Forma CEO Steven Tregay does not rule out a future acquisition, and says that large pharmaceutical companies are interested in such a deal.

On January 10, 2012, Forma announced an exclusive alliance with Janssen Biotech (a Johnson & Johnson company), in which the companies will collaborate on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel small molecule drug candidates that target mechanisms of tumor metabolism.

Under the terms of the agreement, Forma will discover and develop drugs against a panel of tumor metabolism targets. Forma may receive up to $700 million in project and milestone funding. In addition, FORMA may receive royalties on revenues from products commercialized as a result of the collaboration. Moreover, if certain milestones are achieved during the initial phase of the collaboration, FORMA will have the opportunity to co-develop and maintain North American commercial rights to one program selected by Janssen. The two companies may also expand the collaboration to include other targets, including those in areas beyond tumor metabolism.

Once again, Dr. Tregay sees the opportunity to maintain North American rights to a product resulting from the collaboration as in line with the company’s strategy to create long-term shareholder value within Forma.

In December 2011, Forma moved its operations from Cambridge MA to Watertown MA, in the process gaining double the amount of space it had before. This will allow for the company’s growth in new internal and partnered R&D projects, and for the growth in staff that this will entail.

As we discussed in earlier articles on this blog, PPIs have been considered “undruggable” targets. However, given that researchers have been able to discover and in at least one case develop small-molecule agents to address this class of targets, it is best to think of this area as a premature technology. As discussed in our July 27, 2011 article, Forma believes that it has developed a set of enabling technologies to move the PPI field up the technology curve, similar to what happened to the monoclonal antibody field in the 1990s. Apparently, several partner organizations–not only Boehringer Ingelheim, but also Novartis and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society–agreed with Forma enough to invest in partnerships in this area.

Forma is not the only Boston-area biotech to have a major program in discovery of drugs that modulate PPIs. Ensemble Therapeutics (Cambridge, MA), has internal programs and partnerships in discovery of small-molecule compounds that target PPIs, and Aileron Therapeutics (Cambridge, MA), which we discussed in our November 27th 2009 and our August 24th 2010 blog articles, is developing peptide compounds designed to target PPIs in internal and partnered programs.

As for cancer metabolism, Forma is once again not the only Boston-area biotech to have major programs in drug discovery in this area. We have discussed Agios Pharmaceuticals, which specializes in that area, in our December 31, 2009, April 23, 2010, and November 30, 2011  Biopharmconsortium Blog articles.

In our December 22, 2010 blog article, we discussed the field of intermediary metabolism, asking “Will intermediary metabolism be a hot field of biology again?” In the 1920s through the 1950s, intermediary metabolism was a hot field of biology, but the field was eclipsed by molecular biology starting with the Watson and Crick paper in 1953. However, largely as the result of research that combines intermediary metabolism and molecular biology, metabolism is coming to the forefront of biomedicine again. In the area of cancer metabolism, researchers such as signal-transduction pioneer (and Agios scientific founder) Lewis Cantley have been combining the two fields in order to understand cancer disease pathways, with implications for drug discovery and development.

All of the companies mentioned in this article are research-stage companies, with no drug candidates yet beyond the preclinical stage. The strategies of these companies, and the compounds that have resulted from them, thus must be validated in clinical studies. Nevertheless, we are encouraged by these companies’ success so far, and the interest show in them and their science and technology platforms by large pharmaceutical companies. The success of these companies also provides an object lesson–premature technologies and neglected fields may at least in some cases provide opportunities for drug developers.

___________________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Blood cells

Our November 25, 2011 article on this blog focused on Ralph Steinman, one of the three winners of The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2011. That article focused on dendritic cell-based vaccines for cancer, and the application of this area of science and technology to treating Dr. Steinman’s own pancreatic cancer. Dr. Steinman died on September 30, 2011 after a four-and-a-half year battle with his disease, and was awarded the Nobel Prize three days later. He is the only person to ever have been awarded a Nobel Prize posthumously.

Now comes a Nobel Prize Essay, in the December 9, 2011 issue of Cell, entitled “Bridging Innate and Adaptive Immunity”, written by William E. Paul (Laboratory of Immunology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH”). It is immediately followed by an obituary for Ralph Steinman, written by Antonio Lanzavecchia and Federica Sallusto (Institute for Research in Biomedicine, Bellinzona, Switzerland).

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2011 was divided, one half awarded jointly to Drs. Bruce A. Beutler (Scripps Research Institute, LA Jolla, CA and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX) and Jules A. Hoffmann [National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), Strasbourg, France] “for their discoveries concerning the activation of innate immunity” and the other half to Dr. Ralph M. Steinman (Rockefeller University, New York, NY) “for his discovery of the dendritic cell and its role in adaptive immunity”. So the focus of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is on the two arms of the immune response–innate and adaptive immunity, and the relationship between the two.

Innate and adaptive immunity in the early to mid-20th century

Dr. Paul’s essay is a historical exposition of how researchers came to understand the basis of the innate and the adaptive immune responses, and how they work together as a coherent system. Adaptive immunity focuses on the ability of a vertebrate organism to “learn” to respond to a specific new antigen, and to “recall” and respond to an antigen that it had been exposed to in the past. Innate immunity focuses on the ability of nearly all multicellular life forms, including plants, to respond rapidly to protect themselves against pathogens, using the inflammatory system.

The essay begins with the first ever Nobel Prize given for a discovery in immunology, in 1908. This was shared by two pioneers in the field–Paul Ehrlich and Ilya (or Élie) Metchnikoff. Ehrlich pioneered the study of what is now called adaptive immunity. His work in immunology focused on the ability of humans and animals to develop specific antibodies to toxins such as tetanus toxin and diphtheria toxin. Metchnikoff pioneered the study of what is now called innate immunity. His work resulted in the discovery of phagocytosis, the process by which certain white blood cells can ingest and destroy harmful microbes.

As outlined in Dr. Paul’s article, most of the attention of immunologists between the awarding of the 1908 Nobel Prize and the modern era was on adaptive immunity, focused on the clonal selection theory of immunity and on discoveries in the the cellular (e.g., T cells) and humoral (e.g., antibodies) arms of adaptive immunity. A key practical application of the study of adaptive immunity–from Ehrlich’s day to the present–has been the development of vaccines.

Adjuvants and Charles Janeway’s pattern recognition hypothesis

However, mid-20th century immunology had a “dirty little secret”. Immunization with a pure antigen produces either a very weak immune response, or immune tolerance. In order to obtain a strong immune response, it is necessary to co-inject an adjuvant along with the antigen. The creation of adjuvants–which is involved not only in experimental immunology, but in such practical applications as vaccines–has been something of a black art. Adjuvants used in vaccines include  oil emulsions (which are thought to serve as depots for an antigen) and aluminum hydroxide (which is thought to act as an irritant). The most famous adjuvant in experimental immunology is complete Freund’s adjuvant, a strong adjuvant that consists of killed Mycobacteria tuberculosis bacteria in a water-in-oil emulsion. (Complete Freund’s adjuvant is too toxic for use in humans.)

In 1989, the late Dr. Charles Janeway (Yale University, New Haven, CT) proposed a hypothesis to explain the need for adjuvants; this hypothesis was very fruitful in stimulating further research on the immune response. Dr. Janeway hypothesized that the immune system required both an antigen/receptor interaction (as in classic adaptive immunity) and a recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). PAMPs would be recognized by “pattern-recognition receptors” (PRRs), which would be broadly expressed by immune and inflammatory cells. Recognition of PAMPs by cells carrying PRRs would result in an innate immune response, which would be interpreted by cells of the adaptive immune system, the lymphocytes, as “permission” to mount an adaptive response when they recognized a specific antigen. In vaccination, the function of an adjuvant would be to provide the needed PAMPs.

Drs. Hoffman and Beutler and innate immunity

Beginning in 1996, Jules Hoffmann and his colleagues elucidated the innate immune response pathway in the fruit fly Drosophila, which enables the fly to produce the antifungal peptide drosomycin, and thus to become resistant to fungal infection. This pathway is initiated by the cell surface receptor Toll, and is homologous to the interleukin 1 (IL-1)/NF-κB signaling pathway, which is a key pathway in vertebrate immune and inflammatory responses.

Dr. Janeway and his colleagues then followed up on this study, in order to identify the corresponding microbial sensors in humans. They first scanned a molecular biology database, and identified a transcript that encoded a human homologue of Drosophila Toll, which they named a “Toll-like receptor” (TLR). Since Dr. Janeway and his colleagues did not know the ligand for their TLR, they constructed a chimeric molecule in which the extracellular domain of CD4 was linked to the cytoplasmic domain of the TLR. They expressed this chimera in a human monocyte cell line. When the chimera was crosslinked with an anti-CD4 antibody, NF-κB was activated, resulting in the production of the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1, IL-6, and IL-8. This showed that humans had at least one Toll homolog (Dr. Janeway’s TLR turned out to be TLR4) and that it controlled a signaling pathway similar to those controlled by Drosophila Toll or human IL-1. The ligands for human TLRs remained unknown, as did whether TLRs were the microbial sensors/PRRs postulated by Dr. Janeway had postulated.

It was Bruce Beutler who first determined the nature of TLR recognition specificity. In the 1990s, he worked to identify the genetic defect that rendered some mice unresponsive to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the major component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, which acts as an endotoxin in humans and other mammals. He used two closely related mouse strains, one of which was responsive to LPS (the “wild type” strain), and the other that was unresponsive (the “mutant” strain). Upon stimulation with LPS, macrophages from the wild type mouse produced tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), while macrophages from mutant mice did not. Dr. Beutler used positional cloning to determine the gene that was mutant in the LPS unresponsive mice. In 1998, he and his colleagues reported that that gene was Tlr4, which codes for the very same TLR identified by Dr. Janeway and his colleagues a year earlier. Dr. Beutler’s study indicated that LPS was a direct or indirect ligand for TLR4. It also showed that one type of molecule that would fulfill the criteria for a “PAMP”, namely LPS, working via TLR4 as a “PRR”, could activate the NF-κB-IL-1 pathway.

Since the initial identification of TLR4 by Dr. Beutler and his colleagues, other researchers have identified numerous other TLRs, which are activated by a variety of bacterial and viral molecules. These include such types of molecules as single- and double-stranded RNAs, CpG oligodeoxynucleotides, bacterial flagellin, lipopeptides, and zymosan, all of which fit with Dr. Janeway’s PAMP hypothesis. Different TLRs occupy different subcelluar locations–some are on the cell surface, others in intracellular vesicles. In addition to TLRs, other types of molecules may also act as PRRs.

Dr. Steinman, dendritic cells, and the unification of innate and adaptive immunity

Now we come to the work of Ralph Steinman and his colleagues on the role of dendritic cells in adaptive immune responses, and their relationship to innate immunity.

Antibodies (whether free antibodies or antibodies on the surface of B cells) can recognize molecules on the surface of pathogens. T cell receptors, however, recognize small antigenic peptides carried by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules on the surface of antigen-presenting cells (APCs). This recognition, together with the activity of other signaling molecules on APCs, results in the activation of the T cell.

The requirement for an APC in T-cell activation was first recognized in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, immunologists generally believed that macrophages and perhaps B cells were the major APCs. In 1973, Ralph Steinman and Zanvil Cohn identified mouse dendritic cells, which are rare cells in the spleen and lymph nodes that have a stellate morphology. In 1978, Dr. Steinman and his colleagues published evidence that dendritic cells had potent immunostimulatory activity, and were over 100 times as effective in immunostimulation as macrophages and B or T cells.

Researchers were initially skeptical about Dr. Steinman’s studies, largely based on the widely held view that the far more numerous macrophages were the major APCs. However, a series of studies by Dr. Steinman and his colleagues showed that dendritic cells are the key APCs for nearly all aspects of T cell activation, and that the potency of dendritic cells as APCs far exceeds that of macrophages and B cells.  Indeed, modern techniques that led to the deletion of dendritic cells result in a profound inability to mount adaptive immune responses.

Dendritic cells are found in perhaps every type of tissue, where they exist in an immature state. For example, the population of immature dendritic cells in the skin are known as Langerhans cells–these cells are illustrated in the figure at the top of our November 25, 2011 article. Immature dendritic cells in tissues act as sentinels of microbial infection, and function to capture antigens (e.g., antigens from pathogenic microbes, or from cells infected by viruses or bacteria). They also express TLRs.

When tissue dendritic cells are stimulated via their TLRs (e.g., by TLR4 binding to bacterial LPS), the dendritic cells change to a mature phenotype, which is specialized in antigen presentation. These mature dendritic cells migrate from the tissue into the draining lymph node. The stimulated dendritic cells in the lymphoid system upregulate class II MHC molecules and other cell surface molecules involved in antigen presentation, and they also produce cytokines involved in T cell activation. The dendritic cells thus activate T cells, and the antigens presented on their surface, as well as the pattern of cytokines they produce, determine the specificity and the type of activated T cells that will result from their actions.

Thus, the work of Dr. Steinman and his colleagues serves to integrate studies of innate and adaptive immunity, and to elucidate how these two branches of the immune system work together to enable humans and other vertebrates to mount immune responses against pathogens and other insults such as tumors.

Despite the major advances in the relationship between innate and adaptive immunity that have been made in recent years, their are still many unknowns. For example, there are minority types of T cells such as natural killer T (NKT) cells and gamma-delta (γδ) T cells, which are conventionally thought to be involved in bridging innate and adaptive immunity. However, their functions are not well understood. Moreover, there are also numerous subsets of dendritic cells, and the functions of these subsets is also not well understood. These cell types, and other unknowns in the relationship between innate and adaptive immunity might, for example, be involved in the pathogenesis of steroid-resistant asthma, the most serious type of asthma.

Implications for drug discovery and development

Our previous article on Ralph Steinman and dendritic cells emphasized the development of dendritic cell vaccines, especially those for cancer. However the broad area of the relationship between innate and adaptive immunity has been and is expected to be a major factor in discovery and development of many types of drugs, vaccines, and immunotherapies.

• Numerous cytokine-based therapies (e.g., interferons, interleukins, and TNF-related therapeutics) have already been developed and marketed. Dr. Beutler himself was the co-discoverer of TNFα in 1985,  and now there are several types of TNF inhibitors on the market.

• In the vaccine area, Dr. Steniman’s work may allow researchers to design more effective adjuvants, a key need in the design of novel anti-viral and anti-cancer vaccines.

• Several companies are developing TLR modulators as drugs or vaccine adjuvants. These include TLR agonists and antagonists. For example, Pfizer is developing the oligonucleotide TLR9 agonist vaccine adjuvant CpG7909 (in Phase 3 trials with GlaxoSmithKline’s MAGE-A3 melanoma vaccine), and another oligonucleotide TLR9 agonist product agatolimod, in combination with trastuzumab (Genentech/Roche’s Herceptin) in treatment of breast cancer (Phase 2). [Pfizer’s TLR agonists were originally developed by Coley Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA), which Pfizer acquired in 2008.] TLR antagonists in development include Eisai’s eritoran tetrasodium, a TLR4 antagonist in Phase 3 trials for the treatment of sepsis and septic shock.

• Research on the role of various immune cell populations that are thought to link innate and adaptive immunity (e.g. Th17 cells, NKT cells, and γδ T cells) in steroid-resistant asthma may lead to the design of new medicines to treat this serious condition.

There are likely to be numerous other drug discovery and development applications of research on the relationship between innate and adaptive immunity that will emerge as work in this very complex area continues.
__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.