Global Parkinson’s Disease Drugs Market Outlook 2022 – Markets Insider

NEW YORK, Aug. 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Parkinson's disease belongs to the group of conditions called motor system disorders. This disease is a result of loss of dopamine producing neurons in the brain. The four primary symptoms of Parkinson's disease are tremors, rigidity, slowness of movement and postural instability. Although, there is no cure for Parkinson's disease, several medications are used to suppress the symptoms of the disease.

Read the full report: http://www.reportlinker.com/p05075843/Global-Parkinsons-Disease-Drugs-Market-Outlook.html

As per RNCOS report "Global Parkinson's Disease Drugs Market Outlook 2022", the global Parkinson's disease drugs market is anticipated to witness a moderate growth during 2016-2022. This report provides a detailed analysis of the current and future market scenario of the global Parkinson's disease drugs market. The report provides insight about the major drivers, such as increasing awareness about Parkinson's disease and its treatment options, research grants and funds, for the global Parkinson's disease drugs market.

Furthermore, few challenges, such as patent expiry and high cost of treatment, which are hindering the growth of the global Parkinson's disease drugs market have also been mentioned in the report. In addition, the report also highlights various opportunities available for growth of the global Parkinson's disease drugs market.

The global Parkinson's disease drugs market has been segmented on the basis of type of therapy into levodopa therapy, dopamine therapy, MAO-B inhibitor therapy, COMT inhibitor therapy, and other types of therapies. Among all the types, levodopa therapy is the first and most potent treatment for the Parkinson's disease. The benefits of the medication are witnessed soon after administration.

Apart from these types of therapies, various pharmaceutical and biotech companies are also developing stem cell therapy for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Stem cell therapy is an evolving field which makes use of stem cells to treat or prevent a disease or condition, such as Parkinson's disease. Even a minimal success from this procedure can mean significant improvement in quality of life for patients.

Numerous companies, such as SanBio Inc and International Stem Cell Corp, are carrying out clinical trials for stem cell therapies for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Hence, stem cell therapy presents great opportunities for the growth of global Parkinson's disease drugs market in the coming years.

Based on geography, the report divides the market into North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. In 2016, North America accounted for the largest share in the global Parkinson's disease drugs market. Moreover, the report also highlights various mergers and acquisitions taking place in the global Parkinson's disease drugs industry. The drugs pipeline of Parkinson's disease has also been mentioned in the report.

Read the full report: http://www.reportlinker.com/p05075843/Global-Parkinsons-Disease-Drugs-Market-Outlook.html

About Reportlinker ReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

http://www.reportlinker.com __________________________ Contact Clare: rel="nofollow">clare@reportlinker.com US: (339)-368-6001 Intl: +1 339-368-6001

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-parkinsons-disease-drugs-market-outlook-2022-300508683.html

SOURCE Reportlinker

Read more here:
Global Parkinson's Disease Drugs Market Outlook 2022 - Markets Insider

Test reveals possible treatments for disorders involving MeCP2 – Baylor College of Medicine News (press release)

The first step consisted of genetically modifying a laboratory cell line in which the researchers could monitor the levels of fluorescent MeCP2 as they inhibited molecules that might be involved in its regulation. First author Dr. Laura Lombardi, a postdoctoral researcher in the Zoghbi lab at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, developed this cell line and then used it to systematically inhibit one by one the nearly 900 kinase and phosphatase genes whose activity could be potentially inhibited with drugs.

We wanted to determine which ones of those hundreds of genes would reduce the level of MeCP2 when inhibited, Lombardi said. If we found one whose inhibition would result in a reduction of MeCP2 levels, then we would look for a drug that we could use.

The researchers identified four genes than when inhibited lowered MeCP2 level. Then, Lombardi and her colleagues moved on to the next step, testing how reduction of one or more of these genes would affect MeCP2 levels in mice. They showed that mice lacking the gene for the kinase HIPK2 or having reduced phosphatase PP2A had decreased levels of MeCP2 in the brain.

These results gave us the proof of principle that it is possible to go from screening in a cell line to find something that would work in the brain, Lombardi said.

Most interestingly, treating animal models of MECP2 duplication syndrome with drugs that inhibit phosphatase PP2A was sufficient to partially rescue some of the motor abnormalities in the mouse model of the disease.

This strategy would allow us to find more regulators of MeCP2, Zoghbi said. We cannot rely on just one. If we have several to choose from, we can select the best and safest ones to move to the clinic.

Beyond MeCP2, there are many other genes that cause a medical condition because they are either duplicated or decreased. The strategy Zoghbi and her colleagues used here also can be applied to these other conditions to try to restore the normal levels of the affected proteins and possibly reduce or eliminate the symptoms.

Other contributors to this work include Manar Zaghlula, Yehezkel Sztainberg, Steven A. Baker, Tiemo J. Klisch, Amy A. Tang and Eric J. Huang.

This project was funded by the National Institutes of Health (5R01NS057819), the Rett Syndrome Research Trust and 401K Project from MECP2 duplication syndrome families, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This work also was made possible by the following Baylor College of Medicine core facilities: Cell-Based Assay Screening Service (NIH, P30 CA125123), Cytometry and Cell Sorting Core (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, P30AI036211; National Cancer Institute P30CA125123; and National Center for Research Resources, S10RR024574), Pathway Discovery Proteomics Core, the DNA Sequencing and Gene Vector Core (Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center, DK079638), and the mouse behavioral core of the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center (NIH, U54 HD083092 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development).

The full study can be found inScience Translational Medicine.

Read more:
Test reveals possible treatments for disorders involving MeCP2 - Baylor College of Medicine News (press release)

SQZ Biotech Expands Leadership Team, Appoints Shefali Agarwal, MD, MPH, as Chief Medical Officer – Markets Insider

WATERTOWN, Mass., Aug. 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --SQZ Biotech (SQZ), a preclinical stage biotechnology company developing cell therapies based on its proprietary CellSqueeze technology, announced today the appointment of Shefali Agarwal, MD, MPH, as Chief Medical Officer. As the newest member of the SQZ executive team, Dr. Agarwal, a trained medical oncologist, will lead the Company's clinical and translational development, regulatory planning and execution.

"We are thrilled to have Shefali join the SQZ team. Her deep clinical experience, strategic expertise and track record are exactly what we need to bring our cell therapy concepts to the clinic," said Armon Sharei, PhD, Chief Executive Officer. "With her hands-on oncology background and personal drive to improve patient outcomes, Shefali clearly shares our deep-seated commitment to impact patient lives through a new generation of cell therapies."

Dr. Agarwal served most recently as Senior Vice President, Head of Clinical Development at Curis Inc, where she built the development team and provided leadership across all clinical and medical areas. Concurrently, she continued her previous role at Tesaro as Senior Medical Director, Clinical Lead on Zejula, responsible for designing and overseeing clinical studies and regulatory interactions, as well as serving as clinical lead for NDA submission and for the drug's launch team. Prior to joining Tesaro, Dr. Agarwal was Medical Director at Covidien and then at AVEO Oncology. She began her career in industry at Pfizer, responsible for patient safety and medical oversight of global clinical programs, during which tenure she participated in a successful NDA submission of Torisel and supported clinical studies for the NDA submission of Bosufil.

Dr. Agarwal received her Medical Degree from MRMC Medical School in India, holds a Master's of Science in Business from Merrick School of Business, as well as a Master's in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, she trained at Hopkins, where Dr. Agarwal led clinical research in the OBGYN and anesthesiology department and was an investigator on multiple industry trials, hospital-sponsored INDs, and NIH studies.

"I am greatly inspired by the team at SQZ. Innovating novel, cell-based treatments for patients, SQZ has the potential to broadly transform approaches to personalized medicine and immunotherapy, as well as cell therapy, across diverse disease indications," Dr. Agarwal stated. "The Company has tremendous momentum progressing in the early stages of R&D, and we look forward to further advancing our programs to IND filing and entry into the clinic."

About SQZ Biotech SQZ Biotechnologies is a Massachusetts based, privately held company developing cellular therapies for multiple indications using the proprietary CellSqueeze technology. Through internal research programs and external partnerships, SQZ's unique cell engineering capabilities are being used to develop a new generation of cell therapies to address a wide range of clinical challenges. For more information please visit http://www.sqzbiotech.com.

SQZ Contact: Rebecca Cohen Manager, Corporate Relations & Administration617-758-8672 ext. 728 class="prnews_a" rel="nofollow">rebecca.cohen@sqzbiotech.com

Media Contact: Justin Jackson Burns McClellan 212-213-0006 ext. 327 class="prnews_a" rel="nofollow"> jjackson@burnsmc.com

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sqz-biotech-expands-leadership-team-appoints-shefali-agarwal-md-mph-as-chief-medical-officer-300508021.html

SOURCE SQZ Biotechnologies

See more here:
SQZ Biotech Expands Leadership Team, Appoints Shefali Agarwal, MD, MPH, as Chief Medical Officer - Markets Insider

About Medicine: Teaching teens and tweens about online risks – Ravalli Republic

Todays tweens and teens are connected to one another, and to the world, via digital technology more than any previous generation. Recent Studies show that 95 percent of teens ages 12-17 are online, 78 percent own cell phones, one in four teens has a tablet computer and nine out of 10 teens has access to a computer at home. While todays adolescents may be more digitally savvy than their parents, their lack of maturity and life experiences can quickly get them into trouble. With back to school here, it is especially important to visit both the benefits and risks of social media and internet use in our children.

There are certainly many benefits to social media and internet today and especially for our children. They can stay connected with friends and family, make new friends, share pictures and exchange ideas. They use social media sites for networking for school projects and studying, they can express themselves through blogs, community engagement for charity and volunteering, and improving tolerance by exposing them to diverse ideas and people. It also helps with their health and the mobile technologies have already improved this by increasing medication adherence, better disease understanding and fewer missed appointments.

Despite all of the benefits, there are obviously clear risks. Although it may increase their communication overall, there is a worry that they are spending more time online then in face to face conversation. This may change the ways our children interact and their ability to converse in person.

Cyberbullying is a really big issue and is the most common online risk for all teens. It is deliberately using digital media to communicate false, embarrassing, or hostile information about another person. It can have profound consequences such as depression, anxiety, severe isolation and tragically, suicide.

The disbursement of too much information has lasting consequences as well. Sexting is a risky problem with reports that 20 percent of teens have sent or posted inappropriate photos or videos of themselves. This can have not only personal consequences if the recipients over-share but legal consequences depending on participants ages. In the case of social media sites what goes online, stays online and can affect future college and job acceptance.

There is a new diagnosis that is being researched called Facebook depression that is the development of symptoms of depression after spending a long time on social media sites. The thoughts are that teens compare their lives to others, have less in person interaction and they go online to escape the real world.

Finally, time spent on social media affects sleep. Social media use is linked with less hours of sleep in teens as well as having a TV in the bedroom and having a cell phone. One thought is that the light from screens affects circadian rhythms making it difficult to fall asleep after use.

We know that social media does have positive influences on our children and technology is certainly not going away so we have to have proactive ways to manage the risk in our children. Parents should learn about these technologies first hand. There is simply no better way than to have a profile yourself. It will also enable you to friend your kids and monitor them online. Also having an open discussion with kids and let them know that their online presence is something that you want and need to know about. Keep computers in a public part of your home so you can monitor what they are doing and how much time they are spending there. Emphasize that everything sent over the internet or cell phone can be shared with the entire world, so it is important they use good judgement. Consequences can reach into adulthood and in some cases are legal ones. Have your kids show you their privacy settings and check in regularly to make sure they havent changed. Set limits for internet and cell phone use and learn the signs of trouble: skipping activities, meals and homework for social media; weight loss or gain; a drop in grades. Check chat logs, emails, files and social networking profiles for inappropriate content, friends, messages and images periodically. It is extremely important that you are transparent with your children so they know what you will be doing. Be sure to stress the importance of not using their phone when driving or doing other activities that require their full attention. Have a discussion with children of appropriate age about sexting. Make sure they understand that it is unsafe and can have legal consequences in some instances. And finally try to limit screen time one to two hours before bedtime.

Technology is here to stay and if used appropriately can be an adjunctive to a rich and meaningful life. If we teach our kids responsible social media and internet use early, it can contribute to a richer and more meaningful connection with people and the world. There is plenty of more in depth resources for this online especially through the American Academy of Pediatrics website and I encourage all parents to be proactive in their engagement with their children. I also encourage all parents to discuss this with their family physician for further information.

This weeks health column is collaboration between Ravalli Family Medicine and Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital. Questions and or comments regarding this weeks health column please contact Allisun Jensen, PA-C at Ravalli Family Medicine, 411 West Main Street, Hamilton, MT 59840. Working together to build a healthier community!

Excerpt from:
About Medicine: Teaching teens and tweens about online risks - Ravalli Republic

Washington University School of Medicine; Asterias Biotherapeutics Opens Additional Clinical Site for AST-OPC1 … – STL.News

FREMONT, Calif., Aug. 23, 2017 (STL.NEWS) Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. (NYSE MKT:AST), a biotechnology company pioneering the field of regenerative medicine, today announced that Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO, has been added as a clinical site in the companys ongoing SCiStar Phase 1/2a clinical trial of AST-OPC1, a stem-cell derived investigational therapy, in patients with severe cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). There are now nine clinical sites enrolling patients in the study.

Washington University and its partner Barnes-Jewish Hospital have one of the largest clinical spine care practices in the United States. W. Zachary Ray, MD, Associate Professor of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgery at Washington University School of Medicine, will be the sites principal investigator. Patients enrolled in the trial will receive the AST-OPC1 treatment during surgery at Barnes-Jewish.

Given the studys encouraging early results, we look forward to evaluating whether AST-OPC1 can advance treatment options for patients with severe cervical spinal cord injuries. This investigational therapy is an important contribution to our comprehensive program to treat spinal cord injuries here at Washington University and Barnes-Jewish, said Dr. Ray.

Barnes-Jewish Hospitals Trauma Center was the first in Missouri to receive the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level I verification, which is the highest national recognition possible from ACS.

Washington University School of Medicine is a great addition to our current AST-OPC1 SCiStar study. We hope Washington University School of Medicine will also participate in a future randomized controlled trial of AST-OPC1, stated Dr. Edward Wirth III, Chief Medical Officer of Asterias Biotherapeutics.

About the SCiStar Trial

The SCiStar trial is an open-label, single-arm trial testing three sequential escalating doses of AST-OPC1 administered at up to 20 million AST-OPC1 cells in as many as 35 patients with subacute motor complete (AIS-A or AIS-B) cervical (C-4 to C-7) SCI. These individuals have essentially lost all movement below their injury site and experience severe paralysis of the upper and lower limbs. AIS-A patients have lost all motor and sensory function below their injury site, while AIS-B patients have lost all motor function but may have retained some minimal sensory function below their injury site. AST-OPC1 is being administered 21 to 42 days post-injury. Patients will be followed by neurological exams and imaging procedures to assess the safety and activity of the product.

The study is being conducted at nine centers in the U.S. Clinical sites involved in the study include the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Shepherd Medical Center in Atlanta, University of Southern California (USC) jointly with Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center in Los Angeles, Indiana University, Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose jointly with Stanford University, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in partnership with Magee Rehabilitation Hospital in Philadelphia, UC San Diego Health in San Diego, California, and Washington University School of Medicine in partnership with Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, MO.

Asterias has received a Strategic Partnerships Award grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which provides $14.3 million of non-dilutive funding for the Phase 1/2a clinical trial and other product development activities for AST-OPC1.

Additional information on the Phase 1/2a trial, including trial sites, can be found at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, using Identifier NCT02302157, and at the SCiStar Study Website (www.SCiStar-study.com).

About AST-OPC1

AST-OPC1, an oligodendrocyte progenitor population derived from human embryonic stem cells originally isolated in 1998, has been shown in animals and in vitro to have three potentially reparative functions that address the complex pathologies observed at the injury site of a spinal cord injury. These activities of AST-OPC1 include production of neurotrophic factors, stimulation of vascularization, and induction of remyelination of denuded axons, all of which are critical for survival, regrowth and conduction of nerve impulses through axons at the injury site. In preclinical animal testing, AST-OPC1 administration led to remyelination of axons, improved hindlimb and forelimb locomotor function, dramatic reductions in injury-related cavitation and significant preservation of myelinated axons traversing the injury site.

In a previous Phase 1 clinical trial, five patients with neurologically complete, thoracic spinal cord injury were administered two million AST-OPC1 cells at the spinal cord injury site 7-14 days post-injury. Based on the results of this study, Asterias received clearance from FDA to progress testing of AST-OPC1 to patients with cervical spine injuries in the current SCiStar study, which represents the first targeted population for registration trials. Asterias has completed enrollment in the first four cohorts of this study. Results to date have continued to support the safety of AST-OPC1. Additionally, Asterias has recently reported results suggesting reduced cavitation and improved motor function in patients administered AST-OPC1 in the SCiStar trial.

About Asterias Biotherapeutics

Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company pioneering the field of regenerative medicine. The companys proprietary cell therapy programs are based on its pluripotent stem cell and immunotherapy platform technologies. Asterias is presently focused on advancing three clinical-stage programs which have the potential to address areas of very high unmet medical need in the fields of neurology and oncology. AST-OPC1 (oligodendrocyte progenitor cells) is currently in a Phase 1/2a dose escalation clinical trial in spinal cord injury. AST-VAC1 (antigen-presenting autologous dendritic cells) is undergoing continuing development by Asterias based on promising efficacy and safety data from a Phase 2 study in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), with current efforts focused on streamlining and modernizing the manufacturing process. AST-VAC2 (antigen-presenting allogeneic dendritic cells) represents a second generation, allogeneic cancer immunotherapy. The companys research partner, Cancer Research UK, plans to begin a Phase 1/2a clinical trial of AST-VAC2 in non-small cell lung cancer in 2017. Additional information about Asterias can be found at http://www.asteriasbiotherapeutics.com.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements pertaining to future financial and/or operating and/or clinical research results, future growth in research, technology, clinical development, and potential opportunities for Asterias, along with other statements about the future expectations, beliefs, goals, plans, or prospects expressed by management constitute forward-looking statements. Any statements that are not historical fact (including, but not limited to statements that contain words such as will, believes, plans, anticipates, expects, estimates) should also be considered to be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, risks inherent in the development and/or commercialization of potential products, uncertainty in the results of clinical trials or regulatory approvals, need and ability to obtain future capital, and maintenance of intellectual property rights. Actual results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements and as such should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect the businesses of Asterias, particularly those mentioned in the cautionary statements found in Asterias filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterias disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements.

source; Asterias Biotherapeutics , published on STL.NEWS by St Louis Media, LLC

Visit link:
Washington University School of Medicine; Asterias Biotherapeutics Opens Additional Clinical Site for AST-OPC1 ... - STL.News

Stem Cell Study for Dogs – MyWabashValley

Terre Haute, IN - Maggie Mae and her owner Robert Howrey come from Paris, Illinois for a check-up at the Wabash Valley Animal Hospital in Terre Haute. She doesn't act like it, but Maggie Mae is a senior citizen and she has problems with her joints.

"Arthritis is a common condition in older dogs and we like to help them out," said Dr. Andrew Pickering, veterinarian.

A California company called "Animal Cell Therapies" has enlisted veterinarians all across the country to participate in a study of using stem cells for dogs with arthritis. Some of the canines in the study receive an injection of stem cells, others get just a saline solution.

Local vet, Doctor Andrew Pickering doesn't know which injections Maggie Mae is getting, but she no longer limps, and he's encouraged by the results.

"We're hoping this particular type of treatment will cure the condition for a long period of time so we don't have to keep giving the dog medication all the time," said Pickering.

Howrey says it's almost like having a new dog. "It's been about six weeks, so now she's back doing normal activities, she runs, she chases squirrels "

The research will continue for several more months. And the local clinic is still looking for owners who would like to get their pets involved. Study participation is free for dogs that qualify. Plus, even the animals that receive the saline injections will be able to get the stem cell treatment once the study is complete.

Click here to connect with the study web page

Click here to connect with the Wabash Valley Animal Hospital

View post:
Stem Cell Study for Dogs - MyWabashValley

Joint Preservation vs. Replacement: What’s Your Best Option? – Health Essentials from Cleveland Clinic (blog)

If you have recurring or chronic joint pain, you may think joint replacement surgery is your only option for relief. However, you may want to explore several less invasive options first to helpmaintain mobility as you age.

Cleveland Clinic is a non-profit academic medical center. Advertising on our site helps support our mission. We do not endorse non-Cleveland Clinic products or services. Policy

Withmillions of baby boomers in the United States wanting to stay active into their 60s, 70s and beyond, much recent research has focused on joint health and replacement technology.

Experiencingjoint pain doesnt automatically mean that you should have a joint replacement. Joint replacement surgery is generally performed for late stages of degenerative arthritis (also called osteoarthritis), after other options have failed. Most causes for hip pain can be treated with far less invasive options.

So howdo you know your arthritis or other joint damage needs attention? In general, you should see a doctor if your joint pain limits your activities for more than three days without improvement, or you have recurring episodes of the same pain over several weeks or months.

Read on to find out where you fall on the continuum of joint care.

You can damage a joint suddenly. Orjoint damage may come on gradually, bothering you periodically at first and becoming more painful over time.

The causesofjoint pain may include:

Most joint causes for joint pain never require surgery. However, even in the case of osteoarthritis, surgery is not the first choice. Whatever the cause, youll want to preserve your joints for as long as you can.

This is particularly true if you are a younger, active person.

Joint replacement has gotten much safer and faster to recover from. You may leavethe hospital just a couple of days after surgery, but these are serious operations that are not to be undertaken lightly, says orthopedic surgeonAnthony Miniaci, MD.

Joint replacementparts last longer than they used to. But they are mechanical and subject to loosening, stiffness, complications and infection. These problems may lead to follow-up surgeries down the road.

Most people now live into their 80s. Many of the next generation will live to be older than 100, Dr. Miniaci says. If someone in their 50s is very active and has knee or hip joint replacement, they may need one or two more operations in their lifetime, so we try to avoid it until later if possible.

The goal of preservation is to prevent injury, reduce inflammation and preserve cartilage, Dr. Miniaci says. These factors figure in when your physician weighs your options:

Some joint preservation procedures are newer and considered experimental, Dr. Miniaci says. Physicians have used other preservation techniques for decades. Options, he says, include:

If youve unsuccessfully attempted conservative treatment or if damage to the cartilage or bone is beyond repair, remember that joint replacement is proven to be safe and highly effective in the right patient. This is still often is your best option.

This surgery can dramatically relieve your pain and improve your joints function. However, there are always potential risks and complications with surgery.

Talk with your doctor about the best options and long-term strategies for you. Preserving your joints and your activities and lifestyle is the basis for the partnership that is best for you.

Read the original here:
Joint Preservation vs. Replacement: What's Your Best Option? - Health Essentials from Cleveland Clinic (blog)

Mouse Model of Human Immune System Inadequate for Stem Cell Studies – Technology Networks

A type of mouse widely used to assess how the human immune system responds to transplanted stem cells does not reflect what is likely to occur in patients, according to a study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The researchers urge further optimization of this animal model before making decisions about whether and when to begin wide-scale stem cell transplants in humans.

Known as humanized mice, the animals have been engineered to have a human, rather than a murine, immune system. Researchers have relied upon the animals for decades to study, among other things, the immune response to the transplantation of pancreatic islet cells for diabetes and skin grafts for burn victims.

However, the Stanford researchers found that, unlike what would occur in a human patient, the humanized mice are unable to robustly reject the transplantation of genetically mismatched human stem cells. As a result, they cant be used to study the immunosuppressive drugs that patients will likely require after transplant. The researchers conclude that the humanized mouse model is not suitable for studying the human immune response to transplanted stem cells or cells derived from them.

In an ideal situation, these humanized mice would reject foreign stem cells just as a human patient would, said Joseph Wu, MD, PhD, director of Stanfords Cardiovascular Institute and professor of cardiovascular medicine and of radiology. We could then test a variety of immunosuppressive drugs to learn which might work best in patients, or to screen for new drugs that could inhibit this rejection. We cant do that with these animals.

Wu shares senior authorship of the research, which was published Aug. 22 in Cell Reports, with Dale Greiner, PhD, professor in the Program in Molecular Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, and Leonard Shultz, PhD, professor at the Jackson Laboratory. Former postdoctoral scholars Nigel Kooreman, MD, and Patricia de Almeida, PhD, and graduate student Jonathan Stack, DVM, share lead authorship of the study.

Although these mice are fully functional in their immune response to HIV infection or after transplantation of other tissues, they are unable to completely reject the stem cells, said Kooreman. Understanding why this is, and whether we can overcome this deficiency, is a critical step in advancing stem cell therapies in humans.

Humanized mice are critical preclinical models in many biomedical fields helping to bring basic science into the clinic, but as this work shows, it is critical to frame the question properly, said Greiner. Multiple laboratories remain committed to advancing our understanding and enhancing the function of engrafted human immune systems.

Greiner and Shultz helped to pioneer the use of humanized mice in the 1990s to model human diseases and they provided the mice used in the study. Understanding stem cell transplants

The researchers were studying pluripotent stem cells, which can become any tissue in the body. They tested the animals immune response to human embryonic stem cells, which are naturally pluripotent, and to induced pluripotent stem cells. Although iPS cells can be made from a patients own tissues, future clinical applications will likely rely on pre-screened, FDA-approved banks of stem cell-derived products developed for specific clinical situations, such as heart muscle cells to repair tissue damaged by a heart attack, or endothelial cells to stimulate new blood vessel growth. Unlike patient-specific iPS cells, these cells would be reliable and immediately available for clinical use. But because they wont genetically match each patient, its likely that they would be rejected without giving the recipients immunosuppressive drugs.

Humanized mice were first developed in the 1980s. Researchers genetically engineered the mice to be unable to develop their own immune system. They then used human immune and bone marrow precursor cells to reconstitute the animals immune system. Over the years subsequent studies have shown that the human immune cells survive better when fragments of the human thymus and liver are also implanted into the animals.

Kooreman and his colleagues found that two varieties of humanized mice were unable to completely reject unrelated human embryonic stem cells or iPS cells, despite the fact that some human immune cells homed to and were active in the transplanted stem cell grafts. In some cases, the cells not only thrived, but grew rapidly to form cancers called teratomas. In contrast, mice with unaltered immune systems quickly dispatched both forms of human pluripotent stem cells.

The researchers obtained similar results when they transplanted endothelial cells derived from the pluripotent stem cells.

A new mouse model

To understand more about what was happening, Kooreman and his colleagues created a new mouse model similar to the humanized mice. Instead of reconstituting the animals nonexistent immune systems with human cells, however, they used immune and bone marrow cells from a different strain of mice. They then performed the same set of experiments again.

Unlike the humanized mice, these new mice robustly rejected human pluripotent stem cells as well as mouse stem cells from a genetically mismatched strain of mice. In other words, their newly acquired immune systems appeared to be in much better working order.

Although more research needs to be done to identify the cause of the discrepancy between the two types of animals, the researchers speculate it may have something to do with the complexity of the immune system and the need to further optimize the humanized mouse model to perhaps include other types of cells or signaling molecules. In the meantime, they are warning other researchers of potential pitfalls in using this model to screen for immunosuppressive drugs that could be effective after human stem cell transplants.

Many in the fields of pluripotent stem cell research and regenerative medicine are pushing the use of the humanized mice to study the human immune response, said Kooreman. But if we start to make claims using this model, assuming that these cells wont be rejected by patients, it could be worrisome. Our work clearly shows that, although there is some human immune cell activity, these animals dont fully reconstitute the human immune system.

The researchers are hopeful that recent advances may overcome some of the current models limitations.

The immune system is highly complex and there still remains much we need to learn, said Shultz. Each roadblock we identify will only serve as a landmark as we navigate the future. Already, weve seen recent improvements in humanized mouse models that foster enhancement of human immune function.

This article has been republished frommaterialsprovided byStanford Medicine. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

Reference:

Kooreman, N. G., Almeida, P. E., Stack, J. P., Nelakanti, R. V., Diecke, S., Shao, N., . . . Wu, J. C. (2017). Alloimmune Responses of Humanized Mice to Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapeutics. Cell Reports, 20(8), 1978-1990. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.003

Read more:
Mouse Model of Human Immune System Inadequate for Stem Cell Studies - Technology Networks

Researcher Seeks to Unravel the Brain’s Genetic Tapestry to Tackle Rare Disorder – University of Virginia

In 2013, University of Virginia researcher Michael McConnell published research that would forever change how scientists study brain cells.

McConnell and a team of nationwide collaborators discovered a genetic mosaic in the brains neurons, proving that brain cells are not exact replicas of each other, and that each individual neuron contains a slightly different genetic makeup.

McConnell, an assistant professor in the School of Medicines Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, has been using this new information to investigate how variations in individual neurons impact neuropsychiatric disorders like schizophrenia and epilepsy. With a recent $50,000 grant from the Bow Foundation, McConnell will expand his research to explore the cause of a rare genetic disorder known as GNAO1 so named for the faulty protein-coding gene that is its likely source.

GNAO1 causes seizures, movement disorders and developmental delays. Currently, only 50 people worldwide are known to have the disease. The Bow Foundation seeks to increase awareness so that other probable victims of the disorder can be properly diagnosed and to raise funds for further research and treatment.

UVA Today recently sat down with McConnell to find out more about how GNAO1 fits into his broader research and what his continued work means for all neuropsychiatric disorders.

Q. Can you explain the general goals of your lab?

A. My lab has two general directions. One is brain somatic mosaicism, which is a finding that different neurons in the brain have different genomes from one another. We usually think every cell in a single persons body has the same blueprint for how they develop and what they become. It turns out that blueprint changes a little bit in the neurons from neuron to neuron. So you have slightly different versions of the same blueprint and we want to know what that means.

The second area of our work focuses on a new technology called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs. The technology permits us to make stem cell from skin cells. We can do this with patients, and use the stem cells to make specific cell types with same genetic mutations that are in the patients. That lets us create and study the persons brain cells in a dish. So now, if that person has a neurological disease, we can in a dish study that persons disease and identify drugs that alter the disease. Its a very personalized medicine approach to that disease.

Q. Does cell-level genomic variety exist in other areas of the body outside the central nervous system?

A. Every cell in your body has mutations of one kind or another, but brain cells are there for your whole life, so the differences have a bigger impact there. A skin cell is gone in a month. An intestinal cell is gone in a week. Any changes in those cells will rarely have an opportunity to cause a problem unless they cause a tumor.

Q. How does your research intersect with the goals of the Bow Foundation?

A. Let me back up to a little bit of history on that. When I got to UVA four years ago, I started talking quite a lot with Howard Goodkin and Mark Beenhakker. Mark is an assistant professor in pharmacology. Howard is a pediatric neurologist and works with children with epilepsy. I had this interest in epilepsy and UVA has a historic and current strength in epilepsy research.

We started talking about how to use iPSCs the technology that we use to study mosaicism to help Howards patients. As we talked about it and I learned more about epilepsy, we quickly realized that there are a substantial number of patients with epilepsy or seizure disorders where we cant do a genetic test to figure out what drug to use on those patients.

Clinical guidance, like Howards expertise, allows him to make a pretty good diagnosis and know what drugs to try first and second and third. But around 30 percent of children that come in with epilepsy never find the drug that works, and theyre in for a lifetime of trial-and-error. We realized that we could use iPSC-derived neurons to test drugs in the dish instead of going through all of the trial-and-error with patients. Thats the bigger project that weve been moving toward.

The Bow Foundation was formed by patient advocates after this rare genetic mutation in GNAO1 was identified. GNAO1 is a subunit of a G protein-coupled receptor; some mutations in this receptor can lead to epilepsy while others lead to movement disorders.

Were still trying to learn about these patients, and the biggest thing the Bow Foundation is doing is trying to address that by creating a patient registry. At the same time, the foundation has provided funds for us to start making and testing iPSCs and launch this approach to personalized medicine for epilepsy.

In the GNAO1 patients, we expect to be able to study their neurons in a dish and understand why they behave differently, why the electrical activity in their brain is different or why they develop differently.

Q. What other more widespread disorders, in addition to schizophrenia and epilepsy, are likely to benefit from your research?

A. Im part of a broader project called the Brain Somatic Mosaicism Network that is conducting research on diseases that span the neuropsychiatric field. Our lab covers schizophrenia, but other nodes within that network are researching autism, bipolar disorder, Tourette syndrome and other psychiatric diseases where the genetic cause is difficult to identify. Thats the underlying theme.

See the article here:
Researcher Seeks to Unravel the Brain's Genetic Tapestry to Tackle Rare Disorder - University of Virginia

ORGANOID – Science Magazine

By Gunjan SinhaAug. 23, 2017 , 9:00 AM

UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDSBy her 50th birthday, Els van der Heijden felt sicker than ever. Born with the hereditary disorder cystic fibrosis (CF), she had managed to work around her illness, finishing college and landing a challenging job in consulting. But Van der Heijden, who lives in a small Dutch town, says she always felt "a dark cloud hanging over my head." When she began feeling exhausted and easily out of breath in 2015, she thought it was the beginning of the end.

Then she read a newspaper article about a child with CF named Fabian whose life had been saved after scientists grew a "mini-organ" from a tissue sample snipped from his colon, one organ that CF affects. Doctors had used the mini-organ to test ivacaftor (Kalydeco), a drug so expensive that Dutch insurers refuse to cover it without evidence that it will help an individual CF patient. No such data existed for Fabian, whose CF was caused by an extremely rare mutation. But his minigut responded to ivacaftor, and he improved within hours of taking it. His insurance eventually agreed to pay for the drug.

Van der Heijden's doctor arranged to have a minigut made for her as well; it responded to a drug marketed as Orkambi that combines ivacaftor and another compound, lumacaftor. Within weeks after she began taking that combination, "I had an enormous amount of energy," she says. "For the first time ever, I felt like my body was functioning like it should."

The life-altering test was developed in the lab of Hans Clevers, director of the Hubrecht Institute here. More than a decade ago, Clevers identified a type of mother cell in the gut that can give birth to all other intestinal cells. With the right nutrition, his team coaxed such stem cells to grow into a 3D, pencil tip-sized version of the gut from which it came. The minigut was functionally similar to the intestine and replete with all its major cell typesan organoid.

That was the start of a revolution. Clevers and others have since grown organoids from many other organs, including the stomach, pancreas, brain, and liver. Easy to manipulate, organoids are clarifying how tissues develop and repair injury. But perhaps most exciting, many researchers say, is their ability to model diseases in new ways. Researchers are creating organoids from tumor cells to mimic cancers and introducing specific mutations into organoids made from healthy tissue to study how cancer arises. And as Clevers's lab has shown, organoids can help predict how an individual will respond to a drugmaking personalized medicine a reality. "It is highly likely that organoids will revolutionize therapy of many severe diseases," says Rudolf Jaenisch, a stem cell scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

For Clevers, the bonanza has come as a surprise. A basic biologist at heart, he says he never had real-world applications in mind. "I was always driven by curiosity," he says. "For 25 years we published papers with no practical relevance for anyone on this planet."

Organoids can be used to study how pathogens interact with human tissues. In this lung organoid grown in Hans Clevers's lab, cells colored green are infected with respiratory syncytial virus.

NORMAN SACHS

On a bright July morning at the Hubrecht Institute, Clevers listens patiently to presentations during a weekly lab meeting. One postdoc presents data on her efforts to develop an organoid model for small-cell lung cancer; another reports progress on culturing hormone-secreting organoids from human gut tissue. Whenever their research questions strike him as uninspired, Clevers urges them to be more ambitious: "Why don't you pursue something you don't know?" he asks.

"Hans is capable of raising questions that are not contaminated by the anticipated answer," says Edward Nieuwenhuis, chairman of pediatrics at University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) and a good friend. "He has a better nose than most for sniffing around and finding interesting stuff," says Ronald Plasterk, who co-directed the Hubrecht lab with Clevers from 2002 to 2007 and is now the Dutch Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. That approach has earned Clevers many awards. In June, for example, he was inducted into the Orden Pour le Mrite, an elite German order with just 80 members worldwide.

Clevers began his career studying immune cells as a postdoc at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. He landed his first job at UMCU's clinical immunology department in 1989, where he quickly became department head. Most of the work was clinical, such as leukemia diagnostics and blood work for transplants. "But my research interests were always much more basic than the environment that I was in," he says.

In early work, he identified a key molecule, T cell-specific transcription factor 1 (TCF-1), that signals the immune cells known as T lymphocytes to proliferate. Later he found that TCF-1 is part of the larger Wnt family of signaling molecules that's important not only for immune responses, but also for embryonic development and tissue repair. In 1997, his lab team discovered that mice lacking the gene for one of those signals, TCF-4, failed to develop pockets in their intestinal lining called crypts. Soon after, a study with Bert Vogelstein at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, showed that TCF-4 also helps initiate human colon cancer. Fascinated, Clevers switched his focus from the immune system to the gut.

Inspired by a flurry of research on stem cells at the time, Clevers began hunting for intestinal stem cells. More than 50 years ago, researchers deduced that rodent crypts produce many cells that survive only a few days, suggesting some unidentified, longer-lived source for the cells.

After almost a decade of tedious experiments, Clevers's postdoc Nick Barker struck gold in 2007: He discovered that cells carrying a receptor named LGR5 give rise to all cells in mouse intestines and that molecules in the Wnt pathway signal those cells to divide. Barker later found LGR5-positive cells in other organs as well. In some, the cells were always active; in others, such as the liver, they multiplied only when tissues sensed injury.

At the time, culturing stem cells was notoriously hard, but after combing through previous lab experiments, another postdoc in Clevers's lab, Toshiro Sato, concocted a mix of growth factors that coaxed the gut stem cells to replicate in a dish. He hoped to see a flat layer of cells. But what emerged in 2009 from a single LGR5-positive cell was "a beautiful structure that surprised and intrigued me," says Sato, now at Keio University in Tokyo: a 3D replica of a gut epithelium. The structure self-organized into crypts and finger-shaped protrusions called villi, and it began making its own biochemicals. A paper about the feat was rejected several times before being published. Clevers recalls: "No one wanted to believe it."

Soon, the lab began culturing LGR5-positive cells and growing organoids from the stomach, liver, and other organs. "It was an exciting time, and I really felt like we were on the frontiers of discovery," says another postdoc at the time, Meritxell Huch, now at the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge, U.K. "But we certainly didn't think we were opening a new field."

Organoids, lab-grown miniature versions of organs, are transforming science and medicine. Researchers have grown them from many different organs; they have also created organoids from tumor cells to mimic cancers.

V. ALTOUNIAN/SCIENCE

Captivated by stem cells and their potential to regenerate tissues, other labs were starting to make organoids. A few months before Sato's 2009 paper, Akifumi Ootani, a postdoc in Calvin Kuo's group at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, reported using a different strategy to grow gut organoids. Kuo's method starts with tissue fragments rather than individual stem cells and grows them in a gel partly exposed to air instead of submerged in nutrient medium. Around the same time, Yoshiki Sasai of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan, cultured the first brain organoids, starting not with adult stem cells but with embryonic stem cells. Other researchers grew organoids from induced pluripotent stem cells, which resemble embryonic stem cells but are grown from adult cells.

The various methods create different kinds of organoids, each with advantages and drawbacks. Kuo's organoids contain a mix of cell types, which enables "observation of higher-order behaviors such as muscle contraction," he says. Because those organoids include stroma, a scaffold of connective tissue essential for tumor growth, they may prove better for studying therapies that target the stroma, such as cancer immunotherapy. Clevers's mix of growth factors grows organoids consisting primarily of epithelial cells, so his technique doesn't work for the brain and other organs with few or no epithelial cells. Nor can his organoids be used to test drugs targeting blood vessels or immune cells because organoids have neither.

Both methods can generate organoids from individual patients, producing a personalized minigut in just 1 to 3 weeks. (Although Clevers's organoids originate from adult stem cells, isolating those cells isn't necessary; culturing a tissue fragment with the right nutrients is enough.) The methods are reproducible, and the organoids remain genetically stable in culture; they can also be stored in freezers for years.

In 2013, Clevers and others founded a nonprofit, Hubrecht Organoid Technology (HUB), to market applications. Clevers first proposed using organoids for tissue transplants, says HUB Managing Director Rob Vries. Studies showed that healthy organoids implanted in mice with diseased colons could repair injury. "But we bagged the idea because there were too many regulatory hurdles and the chance of success was low," Vries says.

The idea of enlisting organoids to treat CF came from Jeffrey Beekman, a researcher at UMCU who studies that disease. All Dutch newborns are screened for CF, and colon biopsy samples are taken from babies who test positive. The tissue is tested to gauge how dysfunctional the defective gene is and then stored. Growing organoids from those samples would be relatively simple, argued Beekman, who has since spearheaded the project.

CF can arise from more than 2000 mutations in one gene, which cripple the ion channels that move salt and water through cell membranes. The disease affects all tissues, but the primary symptom is excess mucus in the lungs and gut, causing chest infections, coughing, difficulty breathing, and digestive problems.

Ivacaftor and the combination drug lumacaftor and ivacaftor, both marketed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in Boston, restore the ion channels' function. But the drugs don't work equally well for everyone, and they have been tested and approved only for people with the most common mutations, together accounting for roughly half of all CF patients. Vertex, which declined to answer questions for this story, has been reluctant to spend millions on trials in patients with rare mutations because the potential payoff is small. And with the price tagboth drugs cost between 100,000 and 200,000 per year in Europehealth services and insurance companies have been unwilling to pay for the medicines for people with those untested mutations.

Van der Heijden falls into that category because only two other people in the Netherlands share her mutation. But when organoids grown from her gut were exposed to lumacaftor and ivacaftor, the organoids swelled like normal gut tissue, a sign that the defective protein was working and that salt and water were flowing through. The result helped persuade Vertex to give her the drug through a compassionate-use program, without payment. (Regulatory agencies require her to be monitored in a clinical trial.) Her side effects included fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea, but after a few months, "it was as if someone opened the curtain and said, Look, the sun is there, come out and play," she says. "And I did."

Cystic fibrosis patient Els van der Heijden received a new drug combination based on organoid tests. Within weeks, "I had an enormous amount of energy," she says.

TESSA NEDEREND

In collaboration with Vertex, HUB has tested ivacaftor on organoids grown from CF patients who had taken part in a clinical trial of that drug. The study confirmed that organoids can predict who will respond to the drug.

HUB has also tested ivacaftor on organoids from 50 patients with nine rare mutations. On the basis of the results, insurers agreed to pay for the drug in six more Dutch patients, and Vertex is following up with the first clinical trial of ivacaftor in CF patients with rare mutations. Meanwhile, HUB is building a biobank, financed by Dutch health insurers, containing organoids from all 1500 Dutch CF patients for testing both existing drugs and new candidates.

"This is the next big thing in CF research," says Eitan Kerem, head of pediatrics at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, who is building a similar biobank and has launched a trial in patients with rare mutations. Organoids are especially useful because no great animal models for CF exist, Kerem says; ferrets and pigs are sometimes used, but "they are expensive and not available to most researchers."

Drug and biotech companies are now striking deals with HUB to explore organoids in other diseases. The success with CF suggests that they can model other single-gene disorders, such as -1 antitrypsin deficiency, which causes symptoms primarily in the lungs and liver. Some companies are also testing failed drugs on organoids and comparing the results with animal and clinical data, hoping to find ways to predict and avoid such failures.

Cancer is also a major target. By growing organoids from tumor samples, researchers can create minitumors and use them to study how cancer develops or to test drugs. Soon after the minigut paper came out in 2009, David Tuveson, who heads the cancer center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, began prodding Clevers to develop organoids for pancreatic cancer, which is notoriously hard to treat. Existing cell culture models were not very realistic, Tuveson says, and creating genetically engineered mice took up to a year, compared with up to 3 weeks for pancreatic cancer organoids.

The organoids have already helped clarify new pathways that lead to pancreatic cancer, Tuveson says, and unpublished data suggest that they will help researchers predict which treatments will be most effective. He and Clevers are trying to make the organoids resemble real cancer more closely by adding stroma and immune cells. The Hubrecht lab is also involved in two trials to assess whether colon cancer organoids grown from individual patients can predict drug response.

Charles Sawyers of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City is trying to make prostate cancer organoids, but he says they are finicky. Organoids from primary tumors generally don't grow; those from metastatic tissue sometimes do, but normal cells often outgrow cancer cells. "They seem to need a lot of tender love and care, and there is no method to the madness," says Sawyers, who has succeeded with only 20 patients so far.

But Sawyers discovered that he could easily grow organoids from normal prostate tissue"it just works beautifully," he saysand then use gene-editing techniques such as CRISPR to study any cancer mutation he wants. "Is this a tumor suppressor gene? Is this an oncogene? Does it collaborate with geneXY? You can play the kind of games on the scale that you always wanted to," he says. As Kuo puts it, "We can build cancer from the ground up."

Other cancer researchers want in, too. Tuveson received so many requests for organoid training that he began hosting regular workshops at his laboratory. In 2016, the U.S. National Cancer Institute launched a scheme to develop more than 1000 cell culture models, including organoids, for researchers around the world to use, together with Cancer Research UK in London, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, U.K., and HUB.

Using personalized organoids to treat cancer still faces hurdles. Organoid culture time, which varies by cancer, must be shortened, and the cost, a few thousand dollars per patient, needs to come down. Also, cancers accumulate genetic mutations as they progress, which could mean that an organoid grown from a patient's cancer early on might not reflect its later state. Nevertheless, "from my perspective it's the most transformative advance in cancer research that I know of," Tuveson says.

If all of that excites Clevers, he rarely shows it. He avoids emotional language while discussing his research, preferring instead to describe and explain. Even close friends sometimes find his pragmatism puzzling. "He talks about his research like someone talking about screwing in a screw," Nieuwenhuis says.

Clevers says he gets his high from "the satisfaction of finding something novel," regardless of practical applications. Recent experiments, for instance, suggest that when an organ lacks LGR-5-positive cells, differentiated cells may be able to "dedifferentiate" and repair tissuesa radical change from the one-way street toward specific identities that stem cells were thought to travel. "Some organs may not have a professional stem cell at all," Clevers says, with a hint of wonder. But when asked how he felt when he saw his findings have profound benefits for patients such as Fabian and Els van der Heijden, he simply says, "I did not expect that."

More here:
ORGANOID - Science Magazine