Hey, what’s the big idea? CIRM Board is putting up more than $16.4 million to find out

Higgins

David Higgins, CIRM Board member and Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s disease; Photo courtesy San Diego Union Tribune

When you have a life-changing, life-threatening disease, medical research never moves as quickly as you want to find a new treatment. Sometimes, as in the case of Parkinson’s disease, it doesn’t seem to move at all.

At our Board meeting last week David Higgins, our Board member and Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s disease, made that point as he championed one project that is taking a new approach to finding treatments for the condition. As he said in a news release:

“I’m a fourth generation Parkinson’s patient and I’m taking the same medicines that my grandmother took. They work but not for everyone and not for long. People with Parkinson’s need new treatment options and we need them now. That’s why this project is worth supporting. It has the potential to identify some promising candidates that might one day lead to new treatments.”

The project is from Zenobia Therapeutics. They were awarded $150,000 as part of our Discovery Inception program, which targets great new ideas that could have a big impact on the field of stem cell research but need some funding to help test those ideas and see if they work.

Zenobia’s idea is to generate induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) that have been turned into dopaminergic neurons – the kind of brain cell that is dysfunctional in Parkinson’s disease. These iPSCs will then be used to screen hundreds of different compounds to see if any hold potential as a therapy for Parkinson’s disease. Being able to test compounds against real human brain cells, as opposed to animal models, could increase the odds of finding something effective.

Discovering a new way

The Zenobia project was one of 14 programs approved for the Discovery Inception award. You can see the others on our news release. They cover a broad array of ideas targeting a wide range of diseases from generating human airway stem cells for new approaches to respiratory disease treatments, to developing a novel drug that targets cancer stem cells.

Dr. Maria Millan, CIRM’s President and CEO, said the Stem Cell Agency supports this kind of work because we never know where the next great idea is going to come from:

“This research is critically important in advancing our knowledge of stem cells and are the foundation for future therapeutic candidates and treatments. Exploring and testing new ideas increases the chances of finding treatments for patients with unmet medical needs. Without CIRM’s support many of these projects might never get off the ground. That’s why our ability to fund research, particularly at the earliest stage, is so important to the field as a whole.”

The CIRM Board also agreed to invest $13.4 million in three projects at the Translation stage. These are programs that have shown promise in early stage research and need funding to do the work to advance to the next level of development.

  • $5.56 million to Anthony Oro at Stanford to test a stem cell therapy to help people with a form of Epidermolysis bullosa, a painful, blistering skin disease that leaves patients with wounds that won’t heal.
  • $5.15 million to Dan Kaufman at UC San Diego to produce natural killer (NK) cells from embryonic stem cells and see if they can help people with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) who are not responding to treatment.
  • $2.7 million to Catriona Jamieson at UC San Diego to test a novel therapeutic approach targeting cancer stem cells in AML. These cells are believed to be the cause of the high relapse rate in AML and other cancers.

At CIRM we are trying to create a pipeline of projects, ones that hold out the promise of one day being able to help patients in need. That’s why we fund research from the earliest Discovery level, through Translation and ultimately, we hope into clinical trials.

The writer Victor Hugo once said:

“There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.”

We are in the business of finding those ideas whose time has come, and then doing all we can to help them get there.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Using skin cells to repair damaged hearts

heart-muscle

Heart muscle  cells derived from skin cells

When someone has a heart attack, getting treatment quickly can mean the difference between life and death. Every minute delay in getting help means more heart cells die, and that can have profound consequences. One study found that heart attack patients who underwent surgery to re-open blocked arteries within 60 minutes of arriving in the emergency room had a six times greater survival rate than people who had to wait more than 90 minutes for the same treatment.

Clearly a quick intervention can be life-saving, which means an approach that uses a patient’s own stem cells to treat a heart attack won’t work. It simply takes too long to harvest the healthy heart cells, grow them in the lab, and re-inject them into the patient. By then the damage is done.

Now a new study shows that an off-the-shelf approach, using donor stem cells, might be the most effective way to go. Scientists at Shinshu University in Japan, used heart muscle stem cells from one monkey, to repair the damaged hearts of five other monkeys.

In the study, published in the journal Nature, the researchers took skin cells from a macaque monkey, turned those cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and then turned those cells into cardiomyocytes or heart muscle cells. They then transplanted those cardiomyocytes into five other monkeys who had experienced an induced heart attack.

After 3 months the transplanted monkeys showed no signs of rejection and their hearts showed improved ability to contract, meaning they were pumping blood around the body more powerfully and efficiently than before they got the cardiomyocytes.

It’s an encouraging sign but it comes with a few caveats. One is that the monkeys used were all chosen to be as close a genetic match to the donor monkey as possible. This reduced the risk that the animals would reject the transplanted cells. But when it comes to treating people, it may not be feasible to have a wide selection of heart stem cell therapies on hand at every emergency room to make sure they are a good genetic match to the patient.

The second caveat is that all the transplanted monkeys experienced an increase in arrhythmias or irregular heartbeats. However, Yuji Shiba, one of the researchers, told the website ResearchGate that he didn’t think this was a serious issue:

“Ventricular arrhythmia was induced by the transplantation, typically within the first four weeks. However, this post-transplant arrhythmia seems to be transient and non-lethal. All five recipients of [the stem cells] survived without any abnormal behaviour for 12 weeks, even during the arrhythmia. So I think we can manage this side effect in clinic.”

Even with the caveats, this study demonstrates the potential for a donor-based stem cell therapy to treat heart attacks. This supports an approach already being tested by Capricor in a CIRM-funded clinical trial. In this trial the company is using donor cells, derived from heart stem cells, to treat patients who developed heart failure after a heart attack. In early studies the cells appear to reduce scar tissue on the heart, promote blood vessel growth and improve heart function.

The study from Japan shows the possibilities of using a ready-made stem cell approach to helping repair damage caused by a heart attacks. We’re hoping Capricor will take it from a possibility, and turn it into a reality.

If you would like to read some recent blog posts about Capricor go here and here.

New study says stem cells derived from older people may have more problems than we thought.

heart muscle from iPS

iPS-generated heart muscle cells

Ever since 2006 when Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka showed that you could take an adult cell, such as those in your skin, and reprogram it to act like an embryonic stem cell, the scientific world has looked at these induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells as a potential game changer. They had the ability to convert a person’s own cells into any other kind of cell in the body, potentially offering a way of creating personalized treatments for a wide variety of diseases.

Fears that this reprogramming method might create some cancer-causing genetic mutations seemed to have been eased when two recent studies suggested this approach is relatively safe and unlikely to lead to any tumors in patients. We funded one of those studies and blogged about it.

Reason for caution

But now a new study in the journal Cell Stem Cell  says “not so fast”. The study says the older the person is, the greater the chance that any iPS cells derived from their tissue could contain potentially harmful mutations, but not in the places you would normally think.

A team at Oregon Health and Science University, led by renowned scientist Shoukhrat Mitalipov, took skin and blood samples from a 72-year-old man. The scientists examined the DNA from those samples, then reprogrammed those cells into iPS cells, and examined the DNA from the new stem cells.

Mitalipov-2

Shoukhrat Mitalipov: photo courtesy Oregon Health and Science University

When they looked at the cells collectively the levels of mutations in the new iPS cells appeared to be quite low. But when they looked at individual cells, they noticed a wide variety of mutations in the mitochondria in those cells.

Now, mitochondria play an important role in the life of a cell. They act as a kind of battery, providing the power a cell needs to perform a variety of functions such as signaling and cell growth. But while they are part of the cell, mitochondria have their own genomes. It was here that the researchers found the mutations that raised questions.

Older cells have more problems

Next they repeated the experiment but this time took skin and blood samples from 14 people between the ages of 24 and 72. They found that  older people had more genetic mutations in their mitochondrial DNA that were then transferred to the iPS cells derived from those people. In some cases up to 80 percent of the iPS cell lines generated showed mitochondrial mutations. That’s really important because the greater the amount of mutated mitochondrial DNA in a cell, the more its ability to function is compromised.

In a news release, Mitalipov says this should cause people to pause before using iPS cells derived from an older person for therapeutic purposes:

“Pathogenic mutations in our mitochondrial DNA have long been thought to be a driving force in aging and age-related diseases, though clear evidence was missing. Now with that evidence at hand, we know that we must screen stem cells for mutations or collect them at younger age to ensure their mitochondrial genes are healthy. This foundational knowledge of how cells are damaged in the natural process of aging may help to illuminate the role of mutated mitochondria in degenerative disease.”

To be clear, the researchers are not saying these iPS cells from older people should never be used, only that they need to be carefully screened to ensure they are not seriously damaged before being transplanted into a patient.

A possible solution

Mitalipov suggests a simple way around the problem would be to identify the iPS cell with the best mitochondria, and then use that as the basis for a new cell line that could then be used to create a new therapy.

Taosheng Huang, a researcher at the Mitochondrial Disorders Program at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, is quoted in the news release saying the lesson is clear:

“If you want to use iPS cells in a human, you must check for mutations in the mitochondrial genome. Every single cell can be different. Two cells next to each other could have different mutations or different percentages of mutations.”

New stem cell could offer new ways to study birth defects

tony-parenti-stem-cell-2

Tony Parenti, MSU Ph.D student in cell and molecular biology

You never know what you are going to find in the trash. For a group of intrepid researchers at Michigan State University their discovery could lead to new ways of studying birth defects and other reproductive problems. Because what they found in what’s normally considered cellular trash was a new kind of stem cell.

The cell is called an induced extraembryonic endoderm stem (iXEN) cell. The team’s findings are reported in the journal Stem Cell Reports and here’s how lead author Tony Parenti described what they found:

“Other scientists may have seen these cells before, but they were considered to be defective, or cancer-like. Rather than ignore these cells that have been mislabeled as waste byproducts, we found gold in the garbage.”

Here’s the backstory to this discovery. For years researchers have considered embryonic stem cells as the “gold standard” for pluripotent cells, the kind that can be differentiated, or changed, into all kinds of cell in the body.

But studies in mice show that in addition to creating these pluripotent stem cells, the mouse embryo also produces extraembryonic endoderm or XEN cells. For a long time it was believed the gene expression of XEN cells affected the pluripotent stem cells, but the XEN cells were usually thought to be cancer-like, something that occurred as a byproduct of the developing embryo.

Searching through the trash

And that’s how things stayed until the research team at MSU noticed a bunch of XEN-like cells showing up every time they created induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells – a kind of man-made equivalent of embryonic cells with the ability to turn into any other kind of cell but derived in a different way, reprogrammed from adult cells.

So they set out to see how important these, what they called induced or iXEN, cells were to the development of iPS cells. The researchers took  adult mouse cells and reprogrammed them into iPS cells and noticed colonies of iXEN cells in these cultures.

The first goal was to make sure these iXEN cells weren’t cancer-causing, as many researchers believed. This took six months but at the end of it not only were they able to demonstrate that the cells aren’t cancer-causing in a cell culture dish, but that they are a new type of stem cell.

Next step was to see how important endodermal genes are in the formation of iXEN cells. They found that decreasing endodermal gene expression led to a two-fold decrease in the number of iXEN cells and a significant increase in the number of iPS cells.

Competitors not collaborators

They concluded that the parallel pathways that generate pluripotent and XEN cells are in competition with each other and not in support of each other during reprogramming. By suppressing one they were able to boost the other. To their delight they had stumbled on a more efficient way of creating iPS cells.

While the discovery of a new kind of stem cell is always exciting there’s a catch to this; we still don’t know if XEN cells are found in humans. But this discovery gives the researchers additional tools to try and find the answer to that question.

Amy Ralston, a co-author of the study, said in a news release:

“It’s a missing tool that we don’t have yet. It’s true that XEN cells have characteristics that pluripotent stem cells do not have. Because of those traits, iXEN cells can shed light on reproductive diseases. If we can continue to unlock the secrets of iXEN cells, we may be able to improve induced pluripotent stem cell quality and lay the groundwork for future research on tissues that protect and nourish the human embryo.”

Normally the discovery of anything new, particularly when it over turns a long-held belief, is met with a degree of healthy skepticism at first. In science that’s a good thing. We all remember the eager way that STAP stem cells were hailed by many as a new way to create pluripotent stem cells until the research was discredited. But so far the Twitterverse and media outlets seems to share in the excitement about this discovery.

Four Challenges to Making the Best Stem Cell Models for Brain Diseases

Neurological diseases are complicated. A single genetic mutation causes some, while multiple genetic and environmental factors cause others. Also, within a single neurological disease, patients can experience varying symptoms and degrees of disease severity.

And you can’t just open up the brain and poke around to see what’s causing the problem in living patients. It’s also hard to predict when someone is going to get sick until it’s already too late.

To combat these obstacles, scientists are creating clinically relevant human stem cells in the lab to capture the development of brain diseases and the differences in their severity. However, how to generate the best and most useful stem cell “models” of disease is a pressing question facing the field.

Current state of stem cell models for brain diseases

Cold Spring Harbor Lab, Hillside Campus, Location: Cold Spring Harbor, New York, Architect: Centerbrook Architects

Cold Spring Harbor Lab, Hillside Campus, Location: Cold Spring Harbor, New York, Architect: Centerbrook Architects

A group of expert stem cell scientists met earlier this year at Cold Spring Harbor in New York to discuss the current state and challenges facing the development of stem cell-based models for neurological diseases. The meeting highlighted case studies of recent advances in using patient-specific human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) to model a breadth of neurological and psychiatric diseases causes and patient symptoms aren’t fully represented in existing human cell models and mouse models.

The point of the meeting was to identify what stem cell models have been developed thus far, how successful or lacking they are, and what needs to be improved to generate models that truly mimic human brain diseases. For a full summary of what was discussed, you can read a Meeting Report about the conference in Stem Cell Reports.

What needs to be done

After reading the report, it was clear that scientists need to address four major issues before the field of patient-specific stem cell modeling for brain disorders can advance to therapeutic and clinical applications.

1. Define the different states of brain cells: The authors of the report emphasized that there needs to be a consensus on defining different cell states in the brain. For instance, in this blog we frequently refer to pluripotent stem cells and neural (brain) stem cells as a single type of cell. But in reality, both pluripotent and brain stem cells have different states, which are reflected by their ability to turn into different types of cells and activate a different set of genes. The question the authors raised was what starting cell types should be used to model specific brain disorders and how do we make them from iPS cells in a reproducible and efficient fashion?

2. Make stem cell models more complex: The second point was that iPS cell-based models need to get with the times. Just like how most action-packed or animated movies come in 3D IMAX, stem cell models also need to go 3D. The brain is comprised of an integrated network of neurons and glial support cells, and this complex environment can’t be replicated on the flat surface of a petri dish.

Advances in generating organoids (which are mini organs made from iPS cells that develop similar structures and cell types to the actual organ) look promising for modeling brain disease, but the authors admit that it’s far from a perfect science. Currently, organoids are most useful for modeling brain development and diseases like microencephaly, which occurs in infants and is caused by abnormal brain development before or after birth. For more complex neurological diseases, organoid technology hasn’t progressed to the point of providing consistent or accurate modeling.

The authors concluded:

“A next step for human iPS cell-based models of brain disorders will be building neural complexity in vitro, incorporating cell types and 3D organization to achieve network- and circuit-level structures. As the level of cellular complexity increases, new dimensions of modeling will emerge, and modeling neurological diseases that have a more complex etiology will be accessible.”

3. Address current issues in stem cell modeling: The third issue mentioned was that of human mosaicism. If you think that all the cells in your body have the same genetic blue print, then you’re wrong. The authors pointed out that as many as 30% of your skin cells have differences in their DNA structure or DNA sequences. Remember that iPS cell lines are derived from a single patient skin or other cell, so the problem is that studies might need to develop multiple iPS cell lines to truly model the disease.

Additionally, some brain diseases are caused by epigenetic factors, which modify the structure of your DNA rather than the genetic sequence itself. These changes can turn genes on and off, and they are unfortunately hard to reproduce accurately when reprogramming iPS cells from patient adult cells.

4. Improve stem cell models for drug discovery: Lastly, the authors addressed the use of iPS cell-based modeling for drug discovery. Currently, different strategies are being employed by academia and industry, both with their pros and cons.

Industry is pursuing high throughput screening of large drug libraries against known disease targets using industry standard stem cell lines. In contrast, academics are pursuing candidate drug screening on a much smaller scale but using more relevant, patient specific stem cell models.

The authors point out that, “a major goal in the still nascent human stem cell field is to utilize improved cell-based assays in the service of small-molecule therapeutics discovery and virtual early-phase clinical trials.”

While in the past, the paths that academia and industry have taken to reach this goal were different, the authors predict a convergence between the paths:

“Now, research strategies are converging, and both types of researchers are moving toward human iPS cell-based screening platforms, drifting toward a hybrid model… New collaborations between academic and pharma researchers promise a future of parallel screening for both targets and phenotypes.”

Conclusions and Looking to the Future

This meeting successfully described the current landscape of iPS cell-based disease modeling for brain disorders and laid out a roadmap for advancing these stem cell models to a stage where they are more effective for understanding the mechanisms behind disease and for therapeutic screening.

I agree with the authors conclusion that:

“Moving forward, a critical application of human iPS cell-based studies will be in providing a platform for defining the cellular, molecular, and genetic mechanisms of disease risk, which will be an essential first step toward target discovery.”

My favorite points in the report were about the need for more collaboration between academia and industry and also the push for reproducibility of these iPS cell models. Ultimately, the goal is to understand what causes neurological disease, and what drugs or stem cell therapies can be used to cure them. While iPS cell models for brain diseases still have a way to go before being more clinically relevant, they will surely play a prominent role in attaining this goal.

Meeting Attendees

Meeting Attendees

Study Identifies Safer Stem Cell Therapies

To reject or not reject, that is the question facing the human immune system when new tissue or cells are transplanted into the body.

Stem cell-therapy promises hope for many debilitating diseases that currently have no cures. However, the issue of immune rejection has prompted scientists to carefully consider how to develop safe stem cell therapies that will be tolerated by the human immune system.

Before the dawn of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), embryonic stem cells (ESCs) were suggested as a potential source for transplantable cells and tissue. However, ESCs run into a couple of issues, including their origin, and the fact that ESC-derived cells likely would be rejected when transplanted into most areas of a human due to differences in genetic backgrounds.

The discovery of iPSCs in the early 2000’s gave new hope to the field of stem cell therapy. By generating donor cells and tissue from a patient’s own iPSCs, transplanting those cells/tissue back into the same individual shouldn’t – at least theoretically – cause an immune reaction. This type of transplantation is called “autologous” meaning that the stem cell-derived cells have the same genetic background as the person.

Unfortunately, scientists have run up against a roadblock in iPSC-derived stem cell therapy. They discovered that even cells derived from a patient’s own iPSCs can cause an immune reaction when transplanted into that patient. The answers as to why this occurs remained largely unanswered until recently.

In a paper published last week in Cell Stem Cell, scientists from the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) reported that different mature cell types derived from human iPSCs have varying immunogenic effects (the ability to cause an immune reaction) when transplanted into “humanized” mice that have a human immune system. This study along with the research conducted to generate the humanized mice was funded by CIRM grants (here, here).

In this study, retinal pigment epithelial cells (RPE) and skeletal muscle cells (SMC) derived from human iPSCs were transplanted into humanized mice. RPEs were tolerated by the immune system while SMCs were rejected. (Adapted from Zhao et al. 2015)

Scientists took normal mice and replaced their immune system with a human one. They then took human iPSCs generated from the same human tissue used to generate the humanized mice and transplanted different cell types derived from the iPSCs cells into these mice.

Because they were introducing cells derived from the same source of human tissue that the mouse’s immune system was derived from, in theory, the mice should not reject the transplant. However, they found that many of the transplants did indeed cause an immune reaction.

Interestingly, they found that certain mature cell types derived from human iPSCs created a substantial immune reaction while other cell types did not. The authors focused on two specific cell types, smooth muscle cells (SMC) and retinal pigment epithelial cells (RPE), to get a closer look at what was going on.

iPSC-derived smooth muscle cells created a large immune response when transplanted into humanized mice. However, when they transplanted iPSC-derived retinal epithelial cells (found in the retina of the eye), they didn’t see the same immune reaction. As a control, they transplanted RPE cells made from human ESCs, and as expected, they saw an immune response to the foreign ESC-derived RPE cells.

RPE_1

iPSC derived RPE cells (green) do not cause an immune reaction (red) after transplantation into humanized mice while H9 embryonic stem cell derived RPE cells do. (Zhao et al. 2015)

When they looked further to determine why the humanized mice rejected the muscle cells but accepted the retinal cells, they found that SMCs had a different gene expression profile and higher expression of immunogenic molecules. The iPSC-derived RPE cells had low expression of these same immunogenic molecules, which is why they were well tolerated in the humanized mice.

Results from this study suggest that some cell types generated from human iPSCs are safer for transplantation than others, an issue which can be addressed by improving the differentiation techniques used to produce mature cells from iPSCs. This study also suggests that iPSC-derived RPE cells could be a safe and promising stem cell therapy for the treatment of eye disorders such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD). AMD is a degenerative eye disease that can cause vision impairment or blindness and usually affects older people over the age of 50. Currently there is no treatment for AMD, a disease that affects approximately 50 million people around the world. (However there is a human iPSC clinical trial for AMD out of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Japan that has treated one patient but is currently on hold due to safety issues.)

The senior author on this study, Dr. Yang Xu, commented on the importance of this study in relation to AMD in a UCSD press release:

Dr. Yang Xu

Dr. Yang Xu

Immune rejection is a major challenge for stem cell therapy. Our finding of the lack of immune rejection of human iPSC-derived retinal pigment epithelium cells supports the feasibility of using these cells for treating macular degeneration. However, the inflammatory environment associated with macular degeneration could be an additional hurdle to be overcome for the stem cell therapy to be successful.

Xu makes an important point by acknowledging that iPSC-derived RPE cells aren’t a sure bet for curing AMD just yet. More research needs to be done to address other issues that occur during AMD in order for this type of stem cell therapy to be successful.

 


Related Links:

Peering inside the brain: how stem cells could help turn skin into therapies for dementia

To truly understand a disease you need to be able to see how it works, how it causes our body to act in ways that it shouldn’t. In cancer, for example, you can take cells from a tumor and observe them under a microscope to see what is going on. But with diseases of the brain it’s much harder. You can’t just open someone’s skull to grab some cells to study. However, now we have new tools that enable us to skip the skull-opening bit, and examine brain cells in people with diseases like dementia, to see what’s going wrong, and maybe even to get some ideas on how to make it right.

AF_neuronTHMito(2)_webThe latest example of this comes from researchers in Belgium who have developed a new strategy for treating patients with an inherited form of dementia. They used the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) method, taking take skin cells from patients with frontotemporal dementia, and turning them into neurons, the kind of brain cell damaged by the disease. They were then able to study those neurons for clues as to what was happening inside the brain.

The study is reported in the journal Stem Cell Reports, and in an accompanying news release the senior author, Catherine Verfaillie, says this approach allows them to study problems in the brain in ways that weren’t possible before.

“iPSC models can now be used to better understand dementia, and in particular frontotemporal dementia, and might lead to the development of drugs that can curtail or slow down the degeneration of cortical neurons.”

The researchers identified problems with a particular signaling pathway in the brain, Wnt, which plays an important role in the development of neurons. In patients with frontotemporal dementia, the neurons weren’t able to mature into cortical neurons, which play a key role in enabling thought, perception and voluntary movement. However, by genetically correcting that problem they were able to restore the ability of the neurons to turn into cortical neurons.

Philip Van Damme, a lead researcher on the project, says this may open up possible ways to treat the problem.

“Our findings suggest that signaling events required for neurodevelopment may also play major roles in neurodegeneration. Targeting such pathways, as for instance the Wnt pathway presented in this study, may result in the creation of novel therapeutic approaches for frontotemporal dementia.”