Stem Cells make the cover of National Geographic

clive & sam

Clive Svendsen, PhD, left, director of the Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, and Samuel Sances, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the institute, with the January 2019 special edition of National Geographic. The magazine cover features a striking image of spinal cord tissue that was shot by Sances in his lab. Photo by Cedars-Sinai.

National Geographic is one of those iconic magazines that everyone knows about but few people read. Which is a shame, because it’s been around since 1888 and has helped make generations of readers aware about the world around them. And now, it’s shifting gears and helping people know more about the world inside them. That’s because a special January edition of National Geographic highlights stem cells.

The issue, called ‘The Future of Medicine’, covers a wide range of issues including stem cell research being done at Cedars-Sinai by Clive Svendsen and his team (CIRM is funding Dr. Svendsen’s work in a clinical trial targeting ALS, you can read about that here). The team is using stem cells and so-called Organ-Chips to develop personalized treatments for individual patients.

Here’s how it works. Scientists take blood or skin cells from individual patients, then using the iPSC method, turn those into the kind of cell in the body that is diseased or damaged. Those cells are then placed inside a device the size of an AA battery where they can be tested against lots of different drugs or compounds to see which ones might help treat that particular problem.

This approach is still in the development phase but if it works it would enable doctors to tailor a treatment to a patient’s specific DNA profile, reducing the risk of complications and, hopefully, increasing the risk it will be successful. Dr. Svendsen says it may sound like science fiction, but this is not far away from being science fact.

“I think we’re entering a new era of medicine—precision medicine. In the future, you’ll have your iPSC line made, generate the cell type in your body that is sick and put it on a chip to understand more about how to treat your disease.”

Dr. Svendsen isn’t the only connection CIRM has to the article. The cover photo for the issue was taken by Sam Sances, PhD, who received a CIRM stem cell research scholarship in 2010-2011. Sam says he’s grateful to CIRM for being a longtime supporter of his work. But then why wouldn’t we be. Sam – who is still just 31 years old – is clearly someone to watch. He got his first research job, as an experimental coordinator, with Pacific Ag Research in San Luis Obispo when he was still in high school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance, Passion and Progress: and that’s just page one of our 2018 Annual Report

2018_ar_webimage

It’s hard to sum up the activities and achievements of a year in a single document, let alone one that’s just 24 pages. But that’s what we have done in putting together our 2018 Annual Report.

It’s a look back at the year just gone, the highlights, the low lights (spoiler alert – there weren’t any) and the impact we had on the field of stem cell research. But it’s far more than that. It’s also a look ahead. A look at the challenges we face, and profiles of the people who are going to help us overcome those challenges and maintain our progress.

And people are truly at the heart of this report, from UC San Francisco’s Dr. Tippi MacKenzie who is on the front cover for her work in developing an in-utero treatment for the almost always fatal disorder alpha thalassemia major (and the photo of the baby and mom whose lives were changed by that therapy) to Rich Lajara on the back cover, the first person ever treated in a CIRM-funded clinical trial.

Inside are an array of simple images designed to reflect how we as a state agency have performed this year. The numbers themselves tell a powerful story:

  • 50 clinical trials funded to date, 7 this year alone
  • $2.6 billion in CIRM grants has been leveraged to bring in an additional $3.2 billion in matching funds and investments from other sources.
  • 1,180 patients have been involved in CIRM clinical trials

We know people don’t have a lot of time to read Annual Reports so we have made this as visually engaging and informative as possible. We want you to get a real sense of who we are, what we have done and who has helped us do that without you having to wade through a document the size of War and Peace (great book by the way – the Russians beat Napoleon).

We think we have a great story to tell. This Annual Report is one chapter in that story. We hope you like it.

 

Stories that Caught Our Eye: New ways to heal old bones; and keeping track of cells once they are inside you

broken bones

How Youth Factor Can Help Repair Old Bones

As we get older things that used to heal quickly tend to take a little longer to get better. In some cases, a lot longer. Take bones for example. A fracture in someone who is in their 70’s often doesn’t heal as quickly, or completely, as in someone much younger. For years researchers have been working on ways to change that. Now we may be one step closer to doing just that.

We know that using blood stem cells can help speed up healing for bone fractures (CIRM is funding work on that) and now researchers at Duke Health believe they have figured out how that works.

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, identifies what the Duke team call the “youth factor” inside bone marrow stem cells. It’s a type of white blood cell called a macrophage. They say the proteins these macrophages produce help stimulate bone repair.

In a news story in Medicine News Line  Benjamin Alman, senior author on the study, says:

“While macrophages are known to play a role in repair and regeneration, prior studies do not identify secreted factors responsible for the effect. Here we show that young macrophage cells play a role in the rejuvenation process, and injection of one of the factors produced by the young cells into a fracture in old mice rejuvenates the pace of repair. This suggests a new therapeutic approach to fracture rejuvenation.”

Next step, testing this in people.

A new way to track stem cells in the body

It’s one thing to transplant stem cells into a person’s body. It’s another to know that they are going to go where you want them to and do what you want them to. University of Washington researchers have invented a device that doesn’t just track where the cells end up, but also what happens to them along the way.

The device is called “CellTagging”, and in an article in Health Medicine Network, Samantha Morris, one of the lead researchers says this could help in better understanding how to use stem cells to grow replacement tissues and organs.

“There is a lot of interest in the potential of regenerative medicine — growing tissues and organs in labs — to test new drugs, for example, or for transplants one day. But we need to understand how the reprogramming process works. We want to know if the process for converting skin cells to heart cells is the same as for liver cells or brain cells. What are the special conditions necessary to turn one cell type into any other cell type? We designed this tool to help answer these questions.”

In the study, published in the journal Nature, the researchers explain how they use a virus to insert tiny DNA “barcodes” into cells and that as the cells travel through the body they are able to track them.

Morris says this could help scientists better understand the conditions needed to more effectively program cells to do what we want them to.

“Right now, cell reprogramming is really inefficient. When you take one cell population, such as skin cells, and turn it into a different cell population — say intestinal cells — only about 1 percent of cells successfully reprogram. And because it’s such a rare event, scientists have thought it is likely to be a random process — there is some correct set of steps that a few cells randomly hit upon. We found the exact opposite. Our technology lets us see that if a cell starts down the right path to reprogramming very early in the process, all of its related sibling cells and their descendants are on the same page, doing the same thing.”

A brief history of the Stem Cell Agency

On Wednesday, August 15 the California State Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology held an informational hearing on CIRM as part of its mission of ensuring the legislature is up to date and informed about the biotech industry in California. The committee heard from CIRM’s President and CEO Dr. Maria T. Millan and the Vice Chair of our Board, Senator Art Torres (Ret.); two of CIRM’s Patient Advocates (Pawash Priyank and Don Reed) and Dr. Jan Nolta, the Director of the Institute for Regenerative Cures at UC Davis.

The final speaker was David Jensen, whose California Stem Cell Report blog has charted the history of CIRM since its inception. At CIRM we know that not everyone agrees with us all the time, or supports all the decisions we have made in the years since we were approved by voters in 2004, but we do pride ourselves on being open to a thoughtful, vigorous debate on all aspects of stem cell research. David’s presentation to the committee was nothing if not thoughtful, and we thought you might enjoy reading it and so we are presenting it here in its entirety.

For those who prefer to watch than read, here is a video of the entire hearing:

https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/assembly-select-committee-biotechnology-20180815/video

California’s Stem Cell “Gold Rush:” A Brief Overview of the State’s $3 Billion Stem Cell Agency
Prepared testimony by David Jensen, publisher/editor of the California Stem Cell Report, before the Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology, Aug. 15, 2018
I was in Mazatlan in Mexico in the fall of 2004 when I first heard about the creation of
California’s stem cell agency. I was reading the Wall Street Journal online and saw a headline that said a new Gold Rush was about to begin in California — this one involving stem cells instead of nuggets.

“Holy Argonauts,” I said to myself, using the term, of course, that refers to the tens of thousands of people who rushed to the California gold fields in 1849. I wanted to know more about what was likely to happen with this new stem cell gold rush.

Today, nearly 14 years later, I still want to know more about the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine or CIRM, as the agency is formally known. But I can tell you that certain facts are clear.

Borrowing and Autonomy
The agency is unique in California history and among the states throughout the nation. It is the first state agency to fund scientific research with billions of dollars – all of it borrowed. At one point in its history, it is safe to say that the agency was the largest single source of funding in the world for human embryonic stem cell research.

The agency operates with financial and oversight autonomy that is rare in California government, courtesy of the ballot initiative that created it. But that measure also proved to be both a blessing and a curse. The agency’s financial autonomy has allowed it to provide a reasonably steady stream of cash over a number of years, something that is necessary to sustain the long-term research that is critical for development of widely available treatments.

At the same time, the ballot measure carried the agency’s death warrant — no more money after the $3 billion was gone. Cash for new awards is now expected to run out at the end of next year. Over its life, the agency has had a national and somewhat more modestly global impact, both as a source of funding and international cooperation, but also in staying the course on human embryonic stem cell research when the federal government was backing away from it.

Beyond that, the stem cell agency is the only state department whose primary objective is to produce a marketable commercial product. In this case, a cure or treatment for afflictions now nearly untreatable.

Finally, I am all but certain that CIRM is the only state agency that takes back money when a project winds up on the rocks. By the end of last month, that figure totalled in recent years more than $34 million in two big categories of awards. This sort of cash recovery is not a practice that occurs with federal research dollars. With CIRM the money goes back into the pot for more research aimed at treating horrible afflictions.

Evaluations of the Research Effort
Nonetheless the agency has hit some shoals from time to time. In 2010, the agency’s governing board commissioned a $700,000 study of its efforts by the prestigious Institute of Medicine. Two years later, the IOM reported to CIRM that it had some significant flaws.

The IOM study said that the agency had “achieved many notable results.” But it also
recommended sweeping changes to remove conflict of interest problems, clean up a troubling dual-executive arrangement and fundamentally change the nature of the governing board.

The report said,“Far too many board members represent organizations that receive CIRM funding or benefit from that funding. These competing personal and professional interests compromise the perceived independence of the ICOC (the CIRM governing board), introduce potential bias into the board’s decision making, and threaten to undermine confidence in the board.”

The conflict issues are built in by the ballot measure, which gave potential recipient institutions seats on the 29-member governing board. Indeed, in 2017, the last time I calculated the correlation between the board and awards, roughly 90 percent of the money given out by CIRM had gone to institutions with ties to members of the governing board.

About two months after the IOM presented its report, the CIRM board approved a new policy that bars 13 of its 29 members from voting on any grants whatsoever to help deal with questions concerning conflicts of interest on the board.

Other studies about the agency’s performance resulted from a 2010 law in which the legislature modified the initiative to require triennial performance audits that would be paid for by the agency itself. The requirement specifically excluded “scientific performance” from the audit.

The first audit results came in 2012 and contained 27 recommendations for improvement. The most recent performance audit came last spring. The audit firm, Moss Adams, recommended improvements in the areas of private fund-raising, retention of staff and better utilization of board members. The board was told that the agency had made “incredible progress” and that the auditors “usually see a lot of good things.”

The Story of CIRM 2.0
In recent years the agency has been on a self-improvement regime. The effort began in 2014 and was dubbed CIRM 2.0 — a term that was originally coined by a stem cell researcher at UC Davis.

The new direction and emphasis was described by the agency as “radical.” It was aimed at improving speed, efficiency and innovation. And it seems to have largely succeeded.
In 2014, it took almost two years for a good idea to go from application to the final funding stage. The goal was to shorten that to 120 days. Delays in funding are of particular concern to businesses, often for cash flow reasons, but they also mean delays in actually developing a treatment.

This week, the agency said the cash delivery figure now stands at less than 90 days for clinical awards and about 120 days for translational awards.

In 2014, the agency was participating in nine clinical trials, the last stage before a treatment is certified by the federal government for widespread use. Today the agency is involved in 49. In 2014, about 50 patients were involved in those trials. Today the figure is more than 800.

One of the more interesting aspects of CIRM 2.0 marked a departure from what might be called an academic pass-fail approach to the “final exam” for applications from scientists. Instead, CIRM is engaged in a more partner-oriented approach that can be found in some businesses.

Instead of flatly failing an application that is not quite ready for prime time, the idea is to coach applicants along to help bring them up to approval level. Today the agency can count 30 applications that won approval through that process. All of which is work could have slipped away in the more distant past.

CIRM and the Biotech Biz
CIRM is now much more engaged with industry than during its earlier years, when it drew bitter criticism from some business executives. Engagement with biotech firms is critical to bringing a treatment to the public. CIRM is not in the business of actually manufacturing, marketing and selling products. That is a matter left to the private sector.

One reason for closer business connections involves maturation of the work in the field, which has brought research closer to reality. But it is also due to a different focus within the agency as top management has changed.

One of the more difficult areas involving stem cell research and likely treatments is their cost. It is rare to hear researchers or companies talk forthrightly in public about specific dollar amounts. But the cost of drugs and treatment are high visibility matters for patients and elected officials. And estimates of stem cell treatments have run up to at least $900,000.

In 2010, the California legislature moved to help assure affordability by requiring grantees to submit affordable access plans with the caveat that the agency could waive that requirement. How that will ultimately play out as actual products come into the marketplace is yet to be determined.

The Public Policy Questions
A number of significant public policy questions surround the California’s stem cell program involving its creation and execution. They include:
● Is a ballot initiative the best way to approach research and create new state programs?
The initiative is very difficult to alter when changes are needed or priorities change. .
● Does the state have higher health priorities, such as prenatal health care, than supplying
researchers with cash that they could well secure from other sources?
● Is borrowing money to finance the research the best way to go about it? The interest
expense raise the total cost of a $20 million research award to $40 million.
● Should executives of potential recipient institutions serve on the board that awards their employers hundreds of millions of dollars?

This is just a short list of some of the policy matters. Other questions can and should be asked in the wake of the agency’s nearly 14 years of work.

Lives Saved but No Widespread Therapies
Returning to our earlier list of the clear facts about CIRM, another fact is that lives have been saved as the result of clinical trials that the agency it has helped to finance. The youngster from Folsom mentioned earlier in this hearing is one of a number of cases.

That said, these patients received treatment in clinical trials, which may or may not succeed in producing a commercial product that is available to the general public.

Little doubt exists that the agency has advanced the stem cell field and is building towards a critical mass in California. The burgeoning research program at UC Davis, with $138 million in CIRM funding, is one example. Another is the $50 million Alpha Clinic network aimed at creating powerful collaboration within institutions and throughout the state. In addition to Davis, UC San Francisco, UCLA, UC Irvine, UC San Diego and the City of Hope in the Los Angeles area are all part of the Alpha network.

Nonetheless, CIRM has not yet backed a stem cell treatment that is ready for widespread use and fulfilled the voter expectations from 2004 that stem cell cures were right around the corner.

The agency itself also has something of a deadline that is right around the corner in political and scientific terms. Backers of the agency are hoping for another ballot initiative in November 2020 that would pump $5 billion into the program and stave off its slow demise as research winds down. Development of a stem cell treatment that would resonate with voters would be an invaluable development to encourage voters to continue this unique experiment — even if California’s stem cell gold rush does not quite measure up to the dramatic events of 169 years ago.
#######################

CIRM weekly stem cell roundup: stomach bacteria & cancer; vitamin C may block leukemia; stem cells bring down a 6’2″ 246lb football player

gastric

This is what your stomach glands looks like from the inside:  Credit: MPI for Infection Biology”

Stomach bacteria crank up stem cell renewal, may be link to gastric cancer (Todd Dubnicoff)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that two-thirds of the world’s population is infected with H. pylori, a type of bacteria that thrives in the harsh acidic conditions of the stomach. Data accumulated over the past few decades shows strong evidence that H. pylori infection increases the risk of stomach cancers. The underlying mechanisms of this link have remained unclear. But research published this week in Nature suggests that the bacteria cause stem cells located in the stomach lining to divide more frequently leading to an increased potential for cancerous growth.

Tumors need to make an initial foothold in a tissue in order to grow and spread. But the cells of our stomach lining are replaced every four days. So, how would H. pylori bacterial infection have time to induce a cancer? The research team – a collaboration between scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin and Stanford University – asked that question and found that the bacteria are also able to penetrate down into the stomach glands and infect stem cells whose job it is to continually replenish the stomach lining.

Further analysis in mice revealed that two groups of stem cells exist in the stomach glands – one slowly dividing and one rapidly dividing population. Both stem cell populations respond similarly to an important signaling protein, called Wnt, that sustains stem cell renewal. But the team also discovered a second key stem cell signaling protein called R-spondin that is released by connective tissue underneath the stomach glands. H. pylori infection of these cells causes an increase in R-spondin which shuts down the slowly dividing stem cell population but cranks up the cell division of the rapidly dividing stem cells. First author, Dr. Michal Sigal, summed up in a press release how these results may point to stem cells as the link between bacterial infection and increased risk of stomach cancer:

“Since H. pylori causes life-long infections, the constant increase in stem cell divisions may be enough to explain the increased risk of carcinogenesis observed.”

vitamin-c-1200x630

Vitamin C may have anti-blood cancer properties

Vitamin C is known to have a number of health benefits, from preventing scurvy to limiting the buildup of fatty plaque in your arteries. Now a new study says we might soon be able to add another benefit: it may be able to block the progression of leukemia and other blood cancers.

Researchers at the NYU School of Medicine focused their work on an enzyme called TET2. This is found in hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), the kind of stem cell typically found in bone marrow. The absence of TET2 is known to keep these HSCs in a pre-leukemic state; in effect priming the body to develop leukemia. The researchers showed that high doses of vitamin C can prevent, or even reverse that, by increasing the activity level of TET2.

In the study, in the journal Cell, they showed how they developed mice that could have their levels of TET2 increased or decreased. They then transplanted bone marrow with low levels of TET2 from those mice into healthy, normal mice. The healthy mice started to develop leukemia-like symptoms. However, when the researchers used high doses of vitamin C to restore the activity levels of TET2, they were able to halt the progression of the leukemia.

Now this doesn’t mean you should run out and get as much vitamin C as you can to help protect you against leukemia. In an article in The Scientist, Benjamin Neel, senior author of the study, says while vitamin C does have health benefits,  consuming large doses won’t do you much good:

“They’re unlikely to be a general anti-cancer therapy, and they really should be understood based on the molecular understanding of the many actions vitamin C has in cells.”

However, Neel says these findings do give scientists a new tool to help them target cells before they become leukemic.

Jordan reed

Bad toe forces Jordan Reed to take a knee: Photo courtesy FanRag Sports

Toeing the line: how unapproved stem cell treatment made matters worse for an NFL player  

American football players are tough. They have to be to withstand pounding tackles by 300lb men wearing pads and a helmet. But it wasn’t a crunching hit that took Washington Redskins player Jordan Reed out of the game; all it took to put the 6’2” 246 lb player on the PUP (Physically Unable to Perform) list was a little stem cell injection.

Reed has had a lingering injury problem with the big toe on his left foot. So, during the off-season, he thought he would take care of the issue, and got a stem cell injection in the toe. It didn’t quite work the way he hoped.

In an interview with the Richmond Times Dispatch he said:

“That kind of flared it up a bit on me. Now I’m just letting it calm down before I get out there. I’ve just gotta take my time, let it heal and strengthen up, then get back out there.”

It’s not clear what kind of stem cells Reed got, if they were his own or from a donor. What is clear is that he is just the latest in a long line of athletes who have turned to stem cells to help repair or speed up recovery from an injury. These are treatments that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that have not been tested in a clinical trial to make sure they are both safe and effective.

In Reed’s case the problem seems to be a relatively minor one; his toe is expected to heal and he should be back in action before too long.

Stem cell researcher and avid blogger Dr. Paul Knoepfler wrote he is lucky, others who take a similar approach may not be:

“Fortunately, it sounds like Reed will be fine, but some people have much worse reactions to unproven stem cells than a sore toe, including blindness and tumors. Be careful out there!”

Stem Cell Roundup: Battle of the Biotech Bands, “Cells I See” Art Contest and Teaching Baseball Fans the Power of Stem Cells

This Friday’s stem cell roundup is dedicated to the playful side of stem cell science. Scientists are often stereotyped as lab recluses who honorably forgo social lives in the quest to make game-changing discoveries and advance cutting-edge research. But as a former bench scientist, I can attest that scientists are normal people too. They might have a nerdy, slightly neurotic side around their field of research, but they know how to enjoy life and have fun. So here are a few stories that caught our eye this week about scientists having a good time with science.

Rockin’ researchers battle for glory (Kevin McCormack)

Did you know that Bruce Springsteen got his big break after winning the Biotech Battle of the Bands (BBOB)? Probably not, I just made that up. But just because Bruce didn’t hit it big because of BBOB doesn’t mean you can’t.

BBOB is a fun chance for you and your labmates, or research partners, to cast off your lab coats, pick up a guitar, form a band, show off your musical chops, play before a live audience and raise money for charity.  This is the fourth year the event is being held. It’s part of Biotech Week Boston, on Wednesday, September 27th at the Royale Nightclub, Boston.

Biotech Week is a celebration of science and, duh, biotech; bringing together what the event organizers call “the most inventive scientific minds and business leaders in Boston and around the world.” And they wouldn’t lie would they, after all, they’re scientists.

If you want to check out the competition here’s some video from a previous year – see if you can spot the man with the cowbell!

“Cells I See” Stem Cell Art Contest

It’s that time again! The “Cells I See” art contest hosted by Canada’s Centre for Commercialization for Regenerative Medicine (CCRM) and The Stem Cell Network is now open for business. This is a super fun event that celebrates the beauty of stem cells and biomaterials that support regenerative medicine.

Not only is “Cells I See” a great way for scientists to share their research with the public, it’s also a way for them to tap into their artistic, creative side. Last year’s ­contestants submitted breathtaking microscope images, paintings and graphic designs of stem cells in action. The titles for these art submissions were playful. “Nucleic Shower” “The Quest for Innervation” and “Flat, Fluorescent & Fabulous” were some of my favorite title entries.

There are two prizes for this contest. The grand prize of $750 will be awarded to the submission with the highest number of votes from scientists attending the Till and McCulloch Stem Cell Meeting in November. There is also a “People’s Choice” prize of $500 given to the contestant who has the most numbers of likes on the CCRM Facebook page.

The deadline for “Cell I See” submissions is September 8th so you have plenty of time to get your creative juices flowing!

Iris

The 2016 Grand Prize and People’s Choice Winner, Sabiha Hacibekiroglu, won for her photo titled “Iris”.

Scientists Teach Baseball Fans the Power of Stem Cells

San Francisco Giants fans who attended Tuesday’s ball game were in for a special treat – a science treat that is. Researchers from the Gladstone Institutes partnered with the SF Giants to raise awareness about the power of stem cells for advancing research and developing cures for various diseases.

Gladstone PhD student Jessica Butts explains the Stem Cell Plinko game to a Giants fan.

The Gladstone team had a snazzy stem cell booth at the Giant’s Community Clubhouse with fun science swag and educational stem cell activities for fans of all ages. One of the activities was a game called “Stem Cell Plinko” where you drop a ball representing a pluripotent stem cell down a plinko board. The path the ball travels represents how that stem cell differentiates or matures into adult cells like those in the heart.

Gladstone also debuted their new animated stem cell video, which explains how “stem cell research has opened up promising avenues for personalized and regenerative medicine.”

Finally, Gladstone scientists challenged fans to participate in a social media contest about their newfound stem cell knowledge cells on Twitter. The winner of the contest, a woman named Nicole, will get an exclusive, behind-the-scenes lab tour at the Gladstone and “see firsthand how Gladstone is using stem cells to overcome disease.”

The Gladstone “Power of Stem Cells” event is a great example of how scientists are trying to make research and science more accessible to the public. It not only benefits people by educating them about the current state of stem cell research, but also is a fun way for scientists to engage with the local community.

“Participating in the SF Giants game was very fun,” said Megan McDevitt, vice president of communications at the Gladstone Institutes. “Our booth experienced heavy traffic all evening, giving us a wonderful opportunity to engage with the San Francisco community about science and, more specifically, stem cell research. We were delighted to see how interested fans were to learn more on the topic.”

And as if all that wasn’t enough, the Giants won, something that hasn’t been happening very much this season.

Go Giants. Go Gladstone.

Gladstone scientist dropping stem cell knowledge to Giants fans.

Stories that caught our eye: An antibody that could make stem cell research safer; scientists prepare for clinical trial for Parkinson’s disease; and the stem cell scientist running for Congress

Antibody to make stem cells safer:

There is an old Chinese proverb that states: ‘What seems like a blessing could be a curse’. In some ways that proverb could apply to stem cells. For example, pluripotent stem cells have the extraordinary ability to turn into many other kinds of cells, giving researchers a tool to repair damaged organs and tissues. But that same ability to turn into other kinds of cells means that a pluripotent stem cell could also turn into a cancerous one, endangering someone’s life.

A*STAR

Researchers at the A*STAR Bioprocessing Technology Institute: Photo courtesy A*STAR

Now researchers at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) in Singapore may have found a way to stop that happening.

When you change, or differentiate, stem cells into other kinds of cells there will always be some of the original material that didn’t make the transformation. Those cells could turn into tumors called teratomas. Scientists have long sought for a way to identify pluripotent cells that haven’t differentiated, without harming the ones that have.

The team at A*STAR injected mice with embryonic stem cells to generate antibodies. They then tested the ability of the different antibodies to destroy pluripotent stem cells. They found one, they called A1, that did just that; killing pluripotent cells but leaving other cells unharmed.

Further study showed that A1 worked by attaching itself to specific molecules that are only found on the surface of pluripotent cells.

In an article on Phys.Org Andre Choo, the leader of the team, says this gives them a tool to get rid of the undifferentiated cells that could potentially cause problems:

“That was quite exciting because it now gives us a view of the mechanism that is responsible for the cell-killing effect.”

Reviving hope for Parkinson’s patients:

In the 1980’s and 1990’s scientists transplanted fetal tissue into the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease. They hoped the cells in the tissue would replace the dopamine-producing cells destroyed by Parkinson’s, and stop the progression of the disease.

For some patients the transplants worked well. For some they produced unwanted side effects. But for most they had little discernible effect. The disappointing results pretty much brought the field to a halt for more than a decade.

But now researchers are getting ready to try again, and a news story on NPR explained why they think things could turn out differently this time.

tabar-viviane

Viviane Tabar, MD; Photo courtesy Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Viviane Tabar, a stem cell researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, says in the past the transplanted tissue contained a mixture of cells:

“What you were placing in the patient was just a soup of brain. It did not have only the dopamine neurons, which exist in the tissue, but also several different types of cells.”

This time Tabar and her husband, Lorenz Studer, are using only cells that have been turned into the kind of cell destroyed by the disease. She says that will, hopefully, make all the difference:

“So you are confident that everything you are putting in the patient’s brain will consist of  the right type of cell.”

Tabar and Studer are now ready to apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for permission to try their approach out in a clinical trial. They hope that could start as early as next year.

Hans runs for Congress:

Keirstead

Hans Keirstead: Photo courtesy Orange County Register

Hans Keirstead is a name familiar to many in the stem cell field. Now it could become familiar to a lot of people in the political arena too, because Keirstead has announced he’s planning to run for Congress.

Keirstead is considered by some to be a pioneer in stem cell research. A CIRM grant helped him develop a treatment for spinal cord injury.  That work is now in a clinical trial being run by Asterias. We reported on encouraging results from that trial earlier this week.

Over the years the companies he has founded – focused on ovarian, skin and brain cancer – have made him millions of dollars.

Now he says it’s time to turn his sights to a different stage, Congress. Keirstead has announced he is going to challenge 18-term Orange County Republican Dana Rohrabacher.

In an article in the Los Angeles Times, Keirstead says his science and business acumen will prove important assets in his bid for the seat:

“I’ve come to realize more acutely than ever before the deficits in Congress and how my profile can actually benefit Congress. I’d like to do what I’m doing but on a larger stage — and I think Congress provides that, provides a forum for doing the greater good.”

A look back at the last year – but with our eyes firmly on the future

Randy

CIRM President & CEO Randy Mills doesn’t want “good”, he wants “better”

Better.

With that single word Randy Mills, our President and CEO, starts and ends his letter in our 2015 Annual Report and lays out the simple principle that guides the way we work at CIRM.

Better.

But better what?

“Better infrastructure to translate early stage ideas into groundbreaking clinical trials. Better regulatory practices to advance promising stem cell treatments more efficiently. Better treatments for patients in need.”

“Better” is also the standard everyone at CIRM holds themselves to. Getting better at what we do so we can fulfill our mission of accelerating stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs.

The 2015 Annual Report highlights the achievements of the last year, detailing how we invested $135 million in 47 different projects at all levels of research. How our Board unanimously passed our new Strategic Plan, laying out an ambitious series of goals for the next five years from funding 50 new clinical trials, to creating a new regulatory process for stem cell therapies.

Snapshot of CIRM's 2015 Funding

The report offers a snapshot of where our money has gone this year, and how much we have left. It breaks down what percentage of our funding has gone to different diseases and how much we have spent on administration.

Jonathan Thomas, the Chair of our Board, takes a look back at where we started, 10 years ago, comparing what we did then (16 awards for a total of $12.5 million) to what we are doing today. His conclusion; we’re doing better.

But we still have a long way to go. And we are determined to get even better.

P.S. By the way we are changing the way we do our Annual Report. Our next one will come out on January 1, 2017. We figured it just made sense to take a look back at the last year as soon as the new year begins. It gives you a better (that word again) sense of what we did and where we  are heading. So look out for that, coming sooner than you think.

Stem cell stories that caught our eye: turning on T cells; fixing our brains; progress and trends in stem cells; and one young man’s journey to recover from a devastating injury

Healthy_Human_T_Cell

A healthy T cell

Here are some stem cell stories that caught our eye this past week. Some are groundbreaking science, others are of personal interest to us, and still others are just fun.

Directing the creation of T cells. To paraphrase the GOP Presidential nominee, any sane person LOVES, LOVES LOVES their T cells, in a HUGE way, so HUGE. They scamper around the body getting rid of viruses and the tiny cancers we all have in us all the time. A CIRM-funded team at CalTech has worked out the steps our genetic machinery must take to make more of them, a first step in letting physicians turn up the action of our immune systems.

We have known for some time the identity of the genetic switch that is the last, critical step in turning blood stem cells into T cells, but nothing in our body is as simple as a single on-off event. The Caltech team isolated four genetic factors in the path leading to that main switch and, somewhat unsuspected, they found out those four steps had to be activated sequentially, not all at the same time. They discovered the path by engineering mouse cells so that the main T cell switch, Bcl11b, glows under a microscope when it is turned on.

“We identify the contributions of four regulators of Bcl11b, which are all needed for its activation but carry out surprisingly different functions in enabling the gene to be turned on,” said Ellen Rothenberg, the senior author in a university press release picked up by Innovations Report. “It’s interesting–the gene still needs the full quorum of transcription factors, but we now find that it also needs them to work in the right order.”

Video primer on stem cells in the brain.  In conjunction with an article in its August issue, Scientific American posted a video from the Brain Forum in Switzerland of Elena Cattaneo of the University of Milan explaining the basics of adult versus pluripotent stem cells, and in particular how we are thinking about using them to repair diseases in the brain.

The 20-minute talk gives a brief review of pioneers who “stood alone in unmarked territory.” She asks how can stem cells be so powerful; and answers by saying they have lots of secrets and those secrets are what stem cell scientist like her are working to unravel.  She notes stem cells have never seen a brain, but if you show them a few factors they can become specialized nerves. After discussing collaborations in Europe to grow replacement dopamine neurons for Parkinson’s disease, she went on to describe her own effort to do the same thing in Huntington’s disease, but in this case create the striatal nerves lost in that disease.

The video closes with a discussion of how basic stem cell research can answer evolutionary questions, in particular how genetic changes allowed higher organisms to develop more complex nervous systems.

kelley and kent

CIRM Science Officers Kelly Shepard and Kent Fitzgerald

A stem cell review that hits close to home.  IEEE Pulse, a publication for scientists who mix engineering and medicine and biology, had one of their reporters interview two of our colleagues on CIRM’s science team. They asked senior science officers Kelly Shepard and Kent Fitzgerald to reflect on how the stem cell field has progressed based on their experience working to attract top researchers to apply for our grants and watching our panel of outside reviewers select the top 20 to 30 percent of each set of applicants.

One of the biggest changes has been a move from animal stem cell models to work with human stem cells, and because of CIRM’s dedicated and sustained funding through the voter initiative Proposition 71, California scientists have led the way in this change. Kelly described examples of how mouse and human systems are different and having data on human cells has been critical to moving toward therapies.

Kelly and Kent address several technology trends. They note how quickly stem cell scientists have wrapped their arms around the new trendy gene editing technology CRISPR and discuss ways it is being used in the field. They also discuss the important role of our recently developed ability to perform single cell analysis and other technologies like using vessels called exosomes that carry some of the same factors as stem cells without having to go through all the issues around transplanting whole cells.

“We’re really looking to move things from discovery to the clinic. CIRM has laid the foundation by establishing a good understanding of mechanistic biology and how stem cells work and is now taking the knowledge and applying it for the benefit of patients,” Kent said toward the end of the interview.

jake and family

Jake Javier and his family

Jake’s story: one young man’s journey to and through a stem cell transplant; As a former TV writer and producer I tend to be quite critical about the way TV news typically covers medical stories. But a recent story on KTVU, the Fox News affiliate here in the San Francisco Bay Area, showed how these stories can be done in a way that balances hope, and accuracy.

Reporter Julie Haener followed the story of Jake Javier – we have blogged about Jake before – a young man who broke his spine and was then given a stem cell transplant as part of the Asterias Biotherapeutics clinical trial that CIRM is funding.

It’s a touching story that highlights the difficulty treating these injuries, but also the hope that stem cell therapies holds out for people like Jake, and of course for his family too.

If you want to see how a TV story can be done well, this is a great example.

Women in Bio on The Influential Paths of Great Visionary Leaders

Powerful women made powerful statements last week at the Women in Bio (WIB) Plenary Event during the 2016 BIO International Convention. A panel of influential women leaders discussed difficult yet critical topics, such as how to brand yourself as a woman in a male-dominated industry, the importance of side hustles, and how to close the gender gap. It was a dynamic and inspiring event that engaged both men and women in the audience in productive conversation about how we can all work together to support women in the life sciences industry.

The panel was moderated by Nicole Fisher, the Founder and CEO of HHR Strategies and Forbes Contributer, and the speakers included Renee Compton Ryan, VP of Venture Investments at Johnson & Johnson and Frances Colón, Deputy Science and Technology Adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry.

Frances Colon, Renee Ryan, Nicole Fisher.

Frances Colon, Renee Ryan, Nicole Fisher.

The panel was more of a fire-side chat with the three woman talking intimately at a small coffee table, first sharing stories about their career paths and the road blocks along the way, and then delving into the controversial topics that women in the life sciences face.

Career Paths of Influential Women

Nicole told her story about how she got into the healthcare space. She started by ghostwriting about healthcare, innovation, and politics for the Congressional Budget Office director. Her passion turned into an opportunity with Forbes where she now runs the Health Innovation and Policy page and eventually into her company HHR Strategies which focuses on healthcare and human rights.

Renee discussed how she started as an investment banker in healthcare and made an investment in a company that benefitted patients. This experience made her want to be a part of the solution for patients, which she described as “a calling we are all fortunate to have,” and ultimately brought her to her current position at J&J.

After completing a Ph.D. in developmental neurobiology, Frances switched gears and found her strengths and assets in science policy and communications. She wanted to bring science into international affairs and shared that her mission now is to “make science cool to political scientists and diplomats to the point where my job becomes irrelevant.”

Other Panel Highlights

Branding

Renee’s advice on branding was, “challenge yourself to know your brand, and revisit your brand”. Everyone builds a resume chronologically, but she forces herself to revisit her resume every two years. Her trick is to flip the resume over to the blank side and list all her skills but do it through a different lens so you can have perspective. This process helps her decide where she wants to grow and learn.

Having Side Hustles

Frances mentioned the importance of having “side hustles”. These are things that you are really passionate about that will also build on your strengths, raise your visibility and help you take your brand to the next level. She mentioned two side hustles in particular, a non-profit she founded that supports the Puerto Rican Diaspora Network and a group she organized called the Science Technology Table, which brings together government and the private sector to discuss trending topics in science, tech and innovation. Nicole chimed in and said that all three of her side hustles have turned into companies or big opportunities that have significantly advanced her career.

Closing the Gender Gap, No More Manels!

The panelists had much to say about closing the gender gap. Renee encouraged women in high-up positions to mentor other women that show promise and to be a hands-on mentor. She also said that everyone in the biotech and pharma industries should be studying the data to see why there are less women in the life sciences and what can be done about it.

Frances said that the gender policies at companies need to change, and that people at companies have to hold each other accountable and have the conversations that can create change. One of her key points that got a laugh from the crowd was getting rid of “manels”, or all men panels, which are prevalent at major conferences in the biotech and healthcare space. She also spoke about how we need to strive for 50/50 representation on boards and executive management.

What the audience had to say

The panel was a hit with the Women in Bio audience. Dr. Leah Makley, a WIB member and Founder and CSO of ViewPoint Therapeutics, had this to say about the event,

Leah Makley

Leah Makley

“The panelists shared candid wisdom from their own career trajectories, passions, and ‘side hustles’ that far surpassed the typical depth of career panels.  Moreover, I thought Nicole Fisher did an exceptional job of framing the conversation and asking provocative questions.”

She also spoke about the importance of the WIB community and the resources they offer:

“WIB is a supportive community of powerful, inspiring women. Both the members and the events tend to be action- and solution-oriented, and I’ve walked away from each event I’ve attended with new insights, perspectives, and energy. I’m so grateful that this resource exists.”

Marco Chacon

Marco Chacon

A moment that really stood out in my mind was a moving speech by Marco Chacon, Founder of Paragon Bioservices, and a WIB sponsor. Marco shared that he recently attended a meeting in Boston and listened in on a few diversity forums. He was appalled to hear the statistics on gender diversity in the executive suite and boards of directors in biotech and pharma. Passionately he said, “This has got to change, and to the degree that I can affect this in some way, I can assure you I will do so.”

Final Thoughts

Influential leaders like Nicole, Renee, Frances, and Marco and organizations like Women in Bio, are laying the groundwork for the career advancement of women in science. This event was a great reminder that the issues facing women in the life sciences industry can be addressed in the immediate future if we continue the conversation and challenge one another to create change.