Coming up with a stem cell FIX for a life-threatening blood disorder

Hemophilia

A promising new treatment option for hemophiliacs is in the works at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences. Patients with Hemophilia B experience uncontrolled, and sometimes life threatening, bleeding due to loss or improper function of Factor IX (FIX), a protein involved in blood clotting. There is no cure for the disease and patients rely on routine infusions of FIX to prevent excessive blood loss. As you can imagine, this treatment regimen is both time consuming and expensive, while also becoming less effective over time.

Salk researchers, partially funded by CIRM, aimed to develop a more long-term solution for this devastating disease by using the body’s own cells to fix the problem.

In the study, published in the journal Cell Reports, They harvested blood cells from hemophiliacs and turned them into iPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells), which are able to turn into any cell type. Using gene editing, they repaired the iPSCs so they could produce FIX and then turned the iPSCs into liver cells, the cell type that naturally produces FIX in healthy individuals.

One step therapy

To test whether these FIX-producing liver cells were able to reduce excess blood loss, the scientists injected the repaired human cells into a hemophiliac mouse. The results were very encouraging; they saw a greater than two-fold increase in clotting efficiency in the mice, reaching about a quarter of normal activity. This is particularly promising because other studies showed that increasing FIX activity to this level in hemophiliac humans significantly reduces bleeding rates. On top of that they also observed that these cells were able to survive and produce FIX for up to a year in the mice.

In a news release Suvasini Ramaswamy, the first author of the paper, said this method could eliminate the need for multiple treatments, as well as avoiding the immunosuppressive therapy that would be required for a whole liver transplant.

“The appeal of a cell-based approach is that you minimize the number of treatments that a patient needs. Rather than constant injections, you can do this in one shot.”

While these results provide an exciting new avenue in hemophilia treatment, there is still much more work that needs to be done before this type of treatment can be used in humans. This approach, however, is particularly exciting because it provides an important proof of principle that combining stem cell reprogramming with genetic engineering can lead to life-changing breakthroughs for treating genetic diseases that are not currently curable.

 

 

Celebrating Exciting CIRM-Funded Discovery Research on World Parkinson’s Day

April 11th is World Parkinson’s Disease Awareness Day. To mark the occasion, we’re featuring the work of CIRM-funded researchers who are pursuing new, promising ideas to treat patients with this debilitating neurodegenerative disease.


Birgitt Schuele, Parkinson’s Institute

CIRM Grant: Quest Award – Discovery Stage Research

Research: Birgitt and her team at the Parkinson’s Institute in Sunnyvale, California, are using CRISPR gene editing technology to reduce the levels of a toxic protein called alpha synuclein, which builds up in the dopaminergic brain cells affected by Parkinson’s disease.

Birgitt Schuele

“My hope is that I can contribute to stopping disease progression in Parkinson’s. If we can develop a drug that can get rid of accumulated protein in someone’s brain that should stop the cells from dying. If someone has early onset PD and a slight tremor and minor walking problems, stopping the disease and having a low dose of dopamine therapy to control symptoms is almost a cure.”

Parkinson’s disease in a dish. Dopaminergic neurons made from Parkinson’s patient induced pluripotent stem cells. (Image credit: Birgitt Schuele)


Jeanne Loring, Scripps Research Institute

CIRM Grant: Quest Award – Discovery Stage Research

Research: Jeanne Loring and her team at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, are deriving dopaminergic neurons from the iPSCs of Parkinson’s patients. Their goal is to develop a personalized, stem cell-based therapy for PD.

Jeanne Loring

“We are working toward a patient-specific neuron replacement therapy for Parkinson’s disease.  By the time PD is diagnosed, people have lost more than half of their dopamine neurons in a specific part of the brain, and loss continues over time.  No drug can stop the loss or restore the neurons’ function, so the best possible option for long term relief of symptoms is to replace the dopamine neurons that have died.  We do this by making induced pluripotent stem cells from individual PD patients and turning them into the exact type of dopamine neuron that has been lost.  By transplanting a patient’s own cells, we will not need to use potentially dangerous immunosuppressive drugs.  We plan to begin treating patients in a year to two years, after we are granted FDA approval for the clinical therapy.”

Skin cells from a Parkinson’s patient (left) were reprogrammed into induced pluripotent stem cells (center) that were matured into dopaminergic neurons (right) to model Parkinson’s disease. (Image credit: Jeanne Loring)


Justin Cooper-White, Scaled BioLabs Inc.

CIRM Grant: Quest Award – Discovery Stage Research

Research: Justin Cooper-White and his team at Scaled Biolabs in San Francisco are developing a tool that will make clinical-grade dopaminergic neurons from the iPSCs of PD patients in a rapid and cost-effective manner.

Justin Cooper-White

“Treating Parkinson’s disease with iPSC-derived dopaminergic neuron transplantation has a strong scientific and clinical rationale. Even the best protocols are long and complex and generally have highly variable quality and yield of dopaminergic neurons. Scaled Biolabs has developed a technology platform based on high throughput microfluidics, automation, and deep data which can optimize and simplify the road from iPSC to dopaminergic neuron, making it more efficient and allowing a rapid transition to GMP-grade derivation of these cells.  In our first 6 months of CIRM-funded work, we believe we have already accelerated and simplified the production of a key intermediate progenitor population, increasing the purity from the currently reported 40-60% to more than 90%. The ultimate goal of this work is to get dopaminergic neurons to the clinic in a robust and economical manner and accelerate treatment for Parkinson’s patients.”

High throughput differentiation of dopaminergic neuron progenitors in  microbioreactor chambers in Scaled Biolabs’ cell optimization platform. Different chambers receive different differentiation factors, so that optimal treatments for conversion to dual-positive cells can be determined (blue: nuclei, red: FOXA2, green: LMX1A).


Xinnan Wang, Stanford University

CIRM Grant: Basic Biology V

Research: Xinnan Wang and her team at Stanford University are studying the role of mitochondrial dysfunction in the brain cells affected in Parkinson’s disease.

Xinnan Wang

“Mitochondria are a cell’s power plants that provide almost all the energy a cell needs. When these cellular power plants are damaged by stressful factors present in aging neurons, they release toxins (reactive oxygen species) to the rest of the neuron that can cause neuronal cell death (neurodegeneration).  We hypothesized that in Parkinson’s mutant neurons, mitochondrial quality control is impaired thereby leading to neurodegeneration. We aimed to test this hypothesis using neurons directly derived from Parkinson’s patients (induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neurons).”

Dopaminergic neurons derived from human iPSCs shown in green, yellow and red. (Image credit: Atossa Shaltouki, Stanford)


Related Blogs:

Stem Cell Roundup: watching brain cells in real time, building better heart cells, and the plot thickens on the adult neurogenesis debate

Here are the stem cell stories that caught our eye this week.

Watching brain cells in real time

This illustration depicts a new method that enables scientists to see an astrocyte (green) physically interacting with a neuronal synapse (red) in real time, and producing an optical signal (yellow). (Khakh Lab, UCLA Health)

Our stem cell photo of the week is brought to you by the Khakh lab at UCLA Health. The lab developed a new method that allows scientists to watch brain cells interact in real time. Using a technique called fluorescence resonance energy-transfer (FRET) microscopy, the team can visualize how astrocytes (key support cells in our central nervous system) and brain cells called neurons form connections in the mouse brain and how these connections are affected by diseases like Alzheimer’s and ALS.

Baljit Khakh, the study’s first author, explained the importance of their findings in a news release:

“This new tool makes possible experiments that we have been wanting to perform for many years. For example, we can now observe how brain damage alters the way that astrocytes interact with neurons and develop strategies to address these changes.”

The study was published this week in the journal Neuron.


Turn up the power: How to build a better heart cell (Todd Dubnicoff)

For years now, researchers have had the know-how to reprogram a donor’s skin cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and then specialize them into heart muscle cells called cardiomyocytes. The intervening years have focused on optimizing this method to accurately model the biology of the adult human heart as a means to test drug toxicity and ultimately develop therapies for heart disease. Reporting this week in Nature, scientists at Columbia University report an important step toward those goals.

The muscle contractions of a beating heart occur through natural electrical impulses generated by pacemaker cells. In the case of lab-grown cardiomyocytes, introducing mechanical and electrical stimulation is required to reliably generate these cells. In the current study, the research team showed that the timing and amount of stimulation is a critical aspect to the procedure.

The iPS-derived cardiomyocytes have formed heart tissue that closely mimics human heart functionality at over four weeks of maturation. Credit: Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic/Columbia University.

The team tested three scenarios on iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CMs): no electrical stimulation for 3 weeks, constant stimulation for 3 weeks, and finally, two weeks of increasingly higher stimulation followed by a week of constant stimulation. This third setup mimics the changes that occur in a baby’s heart just before and just after birth.

These scenarios were tested in 12 day-old and 28 day-old iPSC-CMs. The results show that only the 12 day-old cells subjected to the increasing amounts of stimulation gave rise to fully mature heart muscle cells. On top of that, it only took four weeks to make those cells. Seila Selimovic, Ph.D., an expert at the National Institutes of Health who was not involved in the study, explained the importance of these findings in a press release:

“The resulting engineered tissue is truly unprecedented in its similarity to functioning human tissue. The ability to develop mature cardiac tissue in such a short time is an important step in moving us closer to having reliable human tissue models for drug testing.”

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-early-bioengineered-human-heart-cells.html#jCp


Yes we do, no we don’t. More confusion over growing new brain cells as we grow older (Kevin McCormack)

First we didn’t, then we did, then we didn’t again, now we do again. Or maybe we do again.

The debate over whether we are able to continue making new neurons as we get older took another twist this week. Scientists at Columbia University said their research shows we do make new neurons in our brain, even as we age.

This image shows what scientists say is a new neuron in the brain of an older human. A new study suggests that humans continue to make new neurons throughout their lives. (Columbia University Irving Medical Center)

In the study, published in the journal Cell Stem Cell, the researchers examined the brains of 28 deceased donors aged 14 to 79. They found similar numbers of precursor and immature neurons in all the brains, suggesting we continue to develop new brain cells as we age.

This contrasts with a UCSF study published just last month which came to the opposite conclusion, that there was no evidence we make new brain cells as we age.

In an interview in the LA Times, Dr. Maura Boldrini, the lead author on the new study, says they looked at a whole section of the brain rather than the thin tissues slices the UCSF team used:

“In science, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can’t find something it doesn’t mean that it is not there 100%.”

Well, that resolves that debate. At least until the next study.

Tiny blood vessels in the brain can spur the growth of spinal motor neurons

Last week, researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center added a new piece to the complex puzzle of what causes neurodegenerative disorders like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The team discovered that the tiny blood vessels in our brains do more than provide nutrients to and remove waste products from our brain tissue. It turns out that these blood vessels can stimulate the growth of new nerve cells called spinal motor neurons, which directly connect to the muscles in our body and control how they move. The study, which was funded in part by a CIRM Discovery research-stage Inception award, was published in the journal Stem Cell Reports.

The Cedars team used a combination of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and organ-on-a-chip technology to model the cellular microenvironment of the spinal cord. They matured the iPSCs into both spinal motor progenitor cells and brain endothelial cells (which line the insides of blood vessels). These cells were transferred to an organ-chip where they were able to make direct contact and interact with each other.

Layers of spinal motor neuron cells (top, in blue) and capillary cells (bottom, in red) converge inside an Organ-Chip. Neurons and capillary cells interact together along the length of the chip. (Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute).

The researchers discovered that exposing the spinal motor progenitor cells to the blood vessel endothelial cells in these organ-chips activated the expression of genes that directed these progenitor cells to mature into spinal cord motor neurons.

Hundreds of spinal motor neurons spontaneously communicate through electrical signals inside an Organ-Chip. Neurons fire individually (flashing dots) and in synchronized bursts (bright waves). (Cedars-Sinai)

First author on the study, Samuel Sances, explained their findings in a news release:

“Until now, people thought these blood vessels just delivered nutrients and oxygen, removed waste and adjusted blood flow. We showed that beyond plumbing, they are genetically communicating with the neurons.”

The team also showed the power of stem cell-based organ-chip platforms for modeling diseases like ALS and answering key questions about why these diseases occur.

“What may go wrong in the spinal neurons that causes the motor neurons to die?” Sances asked. “If we can model an individual ALS patient’s tissues, we may be able to answer that question and one day rescue ALS patients’ neurons through new therapies.”

Clive Svendsen, a CIRM grantee and the senior author on the study, said that his team will conduct additional studies using organ-chip technology to study the interactions between iPSC-derived neurons and blood vessels of healthy individuals and ALS patients. Differences in these cellular interactions in diseased patient cells could offer new targets for developing ALS therapies.

The current study is a collaboration between Cedars and a Boston company called Emulate, Inc. Emulate developed the organ-chip technology and is collaborating with Svendsen at Cedars to not only model neurodegenerative diseases, but also model other organ systems. Be sure to check out our recent blog about their efforts to create a stem cell-based gut-on-a-chip, which they hope will pave the way for personalized treatments for patients with gastrointestinal diseases like Chrohn’s and inflammatory bowel disease.

Stem Cell Roundup: Improving muscle function in muscular dystrophy; Building a better brain; Boosting efficiency in making iPSC’s

Here are the stem cell stories that caught our eye this week.

Photos of the week

TGIF! We’re so excited that the weekend is here that we are sharing not one but TWO amazing stem cell photos of the week.

RMI IntestinalChip

Image caption: Cells of a human intestinal lining, after being placed in an Intestine-Chip, form intestinal folds as they do in the human body. (Photo credit: Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute)

Photo #1 is borrowed from a blog we wrote earlier this week about a new stem cell-based path to personalized medicine. Scientists at Cedars-Sinai are collaborating with a company called Emulate to create intestines-on-a-chip using human stem cells. Their goal is to create 3D-organoids that represent the human gut, grow them on chips, and use these gut-chips to screen for precision medicines that could help patients with intestinal diseases. You can read more about this gut-tastic research here.

Young mouse heart 800x533

Image caption: UCLA scientists used four different fluorescent-colored proteins to determine the origin of cardiomyocytes in mice. (Image credit: UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center/Nature Communications)

Photo #2 is another beautiful fluorescent image, this time of a cross-section of a mouse heart. CIRM-funded scientists from UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center are tracking the fate of stem cells in the developing mouse heart in hopes of finding new insights that could lead to stem cell-based therapies for heart attack victims. Their research was published this week in the journal Nature Communications and you can read more about it in a UCLA news release.

Stem cell injection improves muscle function in muscular dystrophy mice

Another study by CIRM-funded Cedars-Sinai scientists came out this week in Stem Cell Reports. They discovered that they could improve muscle function in mice with muscular dystrophy by injecting cardiac progenitor cells into their hearts. The injected cells not only improved heart function in these mice, but also improved muscle function throughout their bodies. The effects were due to the release of microscopic vesicles called exosomes by the injected cells. These cells are currently being used in a CIRM-funded clinical trial by Capricor therapeutics for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

How to build a better brain (blob)

For years stem cell researchers have been looking for ways to create “mini brains”, to better understand how our own brains work and develop new ways to repair damage. So far, the best they have done is to create blobs, clusters of cells that resemble some parts of the brain. But now researchers at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA have come up with a new method they think can advance the field.

Their approach is explained in a fascinating article in the journal Science News, where lead researcher Bennet Novitch says finding the right method is like being a chef:

“It’s like making a cake: You have many different ways in which you can do it. There are all sorts of little tricks that people have come up with to overcome some of the common challenges.”

Brain cake. Yum.

A more efficient way to make iPS cells

17yamanaka-master768

Shinya Yamanaka. (Image source: Ko Sasaki, New York Times)

In 2006 Shinya Yamanaka discovered a way to take ordinary adult cells and reprogram them into embryonic-like stem cells that have the ability to turn into any other cell in the body. He called these cells induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSC’s. Since then researchers have been using these iPSC’s to try and develop new treatments for deadly diseases.

There’s been a big problem, however. Making these cells is really tricky and current methods are really inefficient. Out of a batch of, say, 1,000 cells sometimes only one or two are turned into iPSCs. Obviously, this slows down the pace of research.

Now researchers in Colorado have found a way they say dramatically improves on that. The team says it has to do with controlling the precise levels of reprogramming factors and microRNA and…. Well, you can read how they did it in a news release on Eurekalert.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

CIRM-funded scientists discover a new way to make stem cells using antibodies

Just as learning a new skill takes time to hone, scientific discoveries take time to perfect. Such is the case with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), the Nobel Prize winning technology that reprograms mature adult cells back into a pluripotent stem cell state. iPSCs are a powerful tool because they can develop into any cell found in the body. Scientists use iPSCs to model diseases in a dish, screen for new drugs, and to develop stem cell-based therapies for patients.

iPSCs grown in a cell culture dish.

The original iPSC technology, discovered by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka in 2006, requires viral delivery of four transcription factor genes, Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc, into the nucleus of an adult cell. These genes are inserted into the genome where they are activated to churn out their respective proteins. The combined expression of these four factors (OSKM) turns off the genetic programming of an adult cell and turns on the programming for a pluripotent stem cell.

The technology is pretty neat and allows scientists to make iPSCs from patients using a variety of different tissue sources including skin, blood, and even urine. However, there is a catch. Inserting reprogramming genes into a cell’s genome can be disruptive if the reprogramming genes fail to switch off or can cause cancer if nefarious oncogenes are turned on.

In response to this concern, scientists are developing alternative methods for making iPSCs using non-invasive methods. A CIRM-funded team from The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) published such a study yesterday in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

Led by senior author and CIRM grantee Dr. Kristin Baldwin, the TSRI team screened a large library of antibodies – proteins that recognize and bind to specific molecules – to identify ones that could substitute for the OSKM reprogramming factors. The hope was that some of these antibodies would bind to proteins on the surface of cells and turn on a molecular signaling cascade from the outside that would turn on the appropriate reprogramming genes from the inside of the cell.

The scientists screened over 100 million antibodies and found ones that could replace three of the four reprogramming factors (Oct4, Sox2, and c-Myc) when reprogramming mouse skin cells into iPSCs. They were unable to find an antibody to replace Klf4 in the current study but have it on their to-do list for future studies.

Dr. Baldwin explained how her team’s findings improve upon previous reprogramming methods in a TSRI news release,

Kristen Baldwin

“This result suggests that ultimately we might be able to make IPSCs without putting anything in the cell nucleus, which potentially means that these stem cells will have fewer mutations and overall better properties.”

 

Other groups have published other non-invasive iPSC reprogramming methods using cocktails of chemicals, proteins or microRNAs in place of virally delivering genes to make iPSCs. However, Baldwin’s study is the first (to our knowledge) to use antibodies to achieve this feat.

An added benefit to antibody reprogramming is that the team was able to learn more about the signaling pathways that were naturally activated by the iPSC reprogramming antibodies.

“The scientists found that one of the Sox2-replacing antibodies binds to a protein on the cell membrane called Basp1. This binding event blocks Basp1’s normal activity and thus removes the restraints on WT1, a transcription factor protein that works in the cell nucleus. WT1, unleashed, then alters the activity of multiple genes, ultimately including Sox2’s, to promote the stem cell state using a different order of events than when using the original reprogramming factors.”

iPSCs made by antibody reprogramming could address some of the long-standing issues associated with more traditional reprogramming methods and could offer further insights into the complex signaling required to turn adult cells back into a pluripotent state. Baldwin and her team are now on the hunt for antibodies that will reprogram human (rather than mouse) cells into iPSCs. Stay tuned!

New stem cell technique gives brain support cells a starring role

Gage et al

The Salk team. From left: Krishna Vadodaria, Lynne Moore, Carol Marchetto, Arianna Mei, Fred H. Gage, Callie Fredlender, Ruth Keithley, Ana Diniz Mendes. Photo courtesy Salk Institute

Astrocytes are some of the most common cells in the brain and central nervous system but they often get overlooked because they play a supporting role to the more glamorous neurons (even though they outnumber them around 50 to 1). But a new way of growing those astrocytes outside the brain could help pave the way for improved treatments for stroke, Alzheimer’s and other neurological problems.

Astrocytes – which get their name because of their star shape (Astron – Greek for “star” and “kyttaron” meaning cell) – have a number of key functions in the brain. They provide physical and metabolic support for neurons; they help supply energy and fuel to neurons; and they help with detoxification and injury repair, particularly in terms of reducing inflammation.

Studying these astrocytes in the lab has not been easy, however, because existing methods of producing them have been slow, cumbersome and not altogether effective at replicating their many functions.

Finding a better way

Now a team at the Salk Institute, led by CIRM-funded Professor Fred “Rusty” Gage, has developed a way of using stem cells to create astrocytes that is faster and more effective.

Their work is published in the journal Stem Cell Reports. In a news release, Gage says this is an important discovery:

“This work represents a big leap forward in our ability to model neurological disorders in a dish. Because inflammation is the common denominator in many brain disorders, better understanding astrocytes and their interactions with other cell types in the brain could provide important clues into what goes wrong in disease.”

Stylized microscopy image of an astrocyte (red) and neuron (green). (Salk Institute)

In a step by step process the Salk team used a series of chemicals, called growth factors, to help coax stem cells into becoming, first, generic brain cells, and ultimately astrocytes. These astrocytes not only behaved like the ones in our brain do, but they also have a particularly sensitive response to inflammation. This gives the team a powerful tool in helping develop new treatment to disorders of the brain.

But wait, there’s more!

As if that wasn’t enough, the researchers then used the same technique to create astrocytes from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) – adult cells, such as skin, that have been re-engineered to have the ability to turn into any other kind of cell in the body. Those man-made astrocytes also showed the same characteristics as natural ones do.

Krishna Vadodaria, one of the lead authors on the paper, says having these iPSC-created astrocytes gives them a completely new tool to help explore brain development and disease, and hopefully develop new treatments for those diseases.

“The exciting thing about using iPSCs is that if we get tissue samples from people with diseases like multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s or depression, we will be able to study how their astrocytes behave, and how they interact with neurons.”

Stem cell stories that caught our eye: developing the nervous system, aging stem cells and identical twins not so identical

Here are the stem cell stories that caught our eye this week. Enjoy!

New theory for how the nervous system develops.

There’s a new theory on the block for how the nervous system is formed thanks to a study published yesterday by UCLA stem cell scientists in the journal Neuron.

The theory centers around axons, thin extensions projecting from nerve cells that transmit electrical signals to other cells in the body. In the developing nervous system, nerve cells extend axons into the brain and spinal cord and into our muscles (a process called innervation). Axons are guided to their final destinations by different chemicals that tell axons when to grow, when to not grow, and where to go.

Previously, scientists believed that one of these important chemical signals, a protein called netrin 1, exerted its influence over long distances in a gradient-like fashion from a structure in the developing nervous system called the floor plate. You can think of it like a like a cell phone tower where the signal is strongest the closer you are to the tower but you can still get some signal even when you’re miles away.

The UCLA team, led by senior author and UCLA professor Dr. Samantha Butler, questioned this theory because they knew that neural progenitor cells, which are the precursors to nerve cells, produce netrin1 in the developing spinal cord. They believed that the netrin1 secreted from these progenitor cells also played a role in guiding axon growth in a localized manner.

To test their hypothesis, they studied neural progenitor cells in the developing spines of mouse embryos. When they eliminated netrin1 from the neural progenitor cells, the axons went haywire and there was no rhyme or reason to their growth patterns.

Left: axons (green, pink, blue) form organized patterns in the normal developing mouse spinal cord. Right: removing netrin1 results in highly disorganized axon growth. (UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center/Neuron)

A UCLA press release explained what the scientists discovered next,

“They found that neural progenitors organize axon growth by producing a pathway of netrin1 that directs axons only in their local environment and not over long distances. This pathway of netrin1 acts as a sticky surface that encourages axon growth in the directions that form a normal, functioning nervous system.”

Like how ants leave chemical trails for other ants in their colony to follow, neural progenitor cells leave trails of netrin1 in the spinal cord to direct where axons go. The UCLA team believes they can leverage this newfound knowledge about netrin1 to make more effective treatments for patients with nerve damage or severed nerves.

In future studies, the team will tease apart the finer details of how netrin1 impacts axon growth and how it can be potentially translated into the clinic as a new therapeutic for patients. And from the sounds of it, they already have an idea in mind:

“One promising approach is to implant artificial nerve channels into a person with a nerve injury to give regenerating axons a conduit to grow through. Coating such nerve channels with netrin1 could further encourage axon regrowth.”

Age could be written in our stem cells.

The Harvard Gazette is running an interesting series on how Harvard scientists are tackling issues of aging with research. This week, their story focused on stem cells and how they’re partly to blame for aging in humans.

Stem cells are well known for their regenerative properties. Adult stem cells can rejuvenate tissues and organs as we age and in response to damage or injury. However, like most house hold appliances, adult stem cells lose their regenerative abilities or effectiveness over time.

Dr. David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, explained,

“We do think that stem cells are a key player in at least some of the manifestations of age. The hypothesis is that stem cell function deteriorates with age, driving events we know occur with aging, like our limited ability to fully repair or regenerate healthy tissue following injury.”

Harvard scientists have evidence suggesting that certain tissues, such as nerve cells in the brain, age sooner than others, and they trigger other tissues to start the aging process in a domino-like effect. Instead of treating each tissue individually, the scientists believe that targeting these early-onset tissues and the stem cells within them is a better anti-aging strategy.

David Sadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.
(Jon Chase/Harvard Staff Photographer)

Dr. Scadden is particularly interested in studying adult stem cell populations in aging tissues and has found that “instead of armies of similarly plastic stem cells, it appears there is diversity within populations, with different stem cells having different capabilities.”

If you lose the stem cell that’s the best at regenerating, that tissue might age more rapidly.  Dr. Scadden compares it to a game of chess, “If we’re graced and happen to have a queen and couple of bishops, we’re doing OK. But if we are left with pawns, we may lose resilience as we age.”

The Harvard Gazette piece also touches on a changing mindset around the potential of stem cells. When stem cell research took off two decades ago, scientists believed stem cells would grow replacement organs. But those days are still far off. In the immediate future, the potential of stem cells seems to be in disease modeling and drug screening.

“Much of stem cell medicine is ultimately going to be ‘medicine,’” Scadden said. “Even here, we thought stem cells would provide mostly replacement parts.  I think that’s clearly changed very dramatically. Now we think of them as contributing to our ability to make disease models for drug discovery.”

I encourage you to read the full feature as I only mentioned a few of the highlights. It’s a nice overview of the current state of aging research and how stem cells play an important role in understanding the biology of aging and in developing treatments for diseases of aging.

Identical twins not so identical (Todd Dubnicoff)

Ever since Takahashi and Yamanaka showed that adult cells could be reprogrammed into an embryonic stem cell-like state, researchers have been wrestling with a key question: exactly how alike are these induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to embryonic stem cells (ESCs)?

It’s an important question to settle because iPSCs have several advantages over ESCs. Unlike ESCs, iPSCs don’t require the destruction of an embryo so they’re mostly free from ethical concerns. And because they can be derived from a patient’s cells, if iPSC-derived cell therapies were given back to the same patient, they should be less likely to cause immune rejection. Despite these advantages, the fact that iPSCs are artificially generated by the forced activation of specific genes create lingering concerns that for treatments in humans, delivering iPSC-derived therapies may not be as safe as their ESC counterparts.

Careful comparisons of DNA between iPSCs and ESCs have shown that they are indeed differences in chemical tags found on specific spots on the cell’s DNA. These tags, called epigenetic (“epi”, meaning “in addition”) modifications can affect the activity of genes independent of the underlying genetic sequence. These variations in epigenetic tags also show up when you compare two different preparations, or cell lines, of iPSCs. So, it’s been difficult for researchers to tease out the source of these differences. Are these differences due to the small variations in DNA sequence that are naturally seen from one cell line to the other? Or is there some non-genetic reason for the differences in the iPSCs’ epigenetic modifications?

Marian and Vivian Brown, were San Francisco’s most famous identical twins. Photo: Christopher Michel

A recent CIRM-funded study by a Salk Institute team took a clever approach to tackle this question. They compared epigenetic modifications between iPSCs derived from three sets of identical twins. They still found several epigenetic variations between each set of twins. And since the twins have identical DNA sequences, the researchers could conclude that not all differences seen between iPSC cell lines are due to genetics. Athanasia Panopoulos, a co-first author on the Cell Stem Cell article, summed up the results in a press release:

“In the past, researchers had found lots of sites with variations in methylation status [specific term for the epigenetic tag], but it was hard to figure out which of those sites had variation due to genetics. Here, we could focus more specifically on the sites we know have nothing to do with genetics. The twins enabled us to ask questions we couldn’t ask before. You’re able to see what happens when you reprogram cells with identical genomes but divergent epigenomes, and figure out what is happening because of genetics, and what is happening due to other mechanisms.”

With these new insights in hand, the researchers will have a better handle on interpreting differences between individual iPSC cell lines as well as their differences with ESC cell lines. This knowledge will be important for understanding how these variations may affect the development of future iPSC-based cell therapies.

How Parkinson’s disease became personal for one stem cell researcher

April is Parkinson’s disease Awareness Month. This year the date is particularly significant because 2017 is the 200th anniversary of the publication of British apothecary James Parkinson’s “An Essay on the Shaking Palsy”, which is now recognized as a seminal work in describing the disease.

Schuele_headshotTo mark the occasion we talked with Dr. Birgitt Schuele, Director Gene Discovery and Stem Cell Modeling at the Parkinson’s Institute and Clinical Center in Sunnyvale, California. Dr. Schuele recently received funding from CIRM for a project using new gene-editing technology to try and halt the progression of Parkinson’s.

 

 

What got you interested in Parkinson’s research?

People ask if I have family members with Parkinson’s because a lot of people get into this research because of a family connection, but I don’t.  I was always excited by neuroscience and how the brain works, and I did my medical residency in neurology and had a great mentor who specialized in the neurogenetics of Parkinson’s. That helped fuel my interest in this area.

I have been in this field for 15 years, and over time I have gotten to know a lot of people with Parkinson’s and they have become my friends, so now I’m trying to find answers and also a cure for Parkinson’s. For me this has become personal.

I have patients that I talk to every couple of months and I can see how their disease is progressing, and especially for people with early or young onset Parkinson’s. It’s devastating. It has a huge effect on the person and their family, and on relationships, even how they have to talk to their kids about their risk of getting the disease themselves. It’s hard to see that and the impact it has on people’s lives. And because Parkinson’s is progressive, I get to see, over the years, how it affects people, it’s very hard.

Talk about the project you are doing that CIRM is funding

It’s very exciting. The question for Parkinson’s is how do you stop disease progression, how do you stop the neurons from dying in areas affected by the disease. One protein, identified in 1997 as a genetic form of Parkinson’s, is alpha-synuclein. We know from studying families that have Parkinson’s that if you have too much alpha-synuclein you get early onset, a really aggressive form of Parkinson’s.

I followed a family that carries four copies of this alpha-synuclein gene (two copies is the normal figure) and the age of onset in this family was in their mid 30’s. Last year I went to a funeral for one of these family members who died from Parkinson’s at age 50.

We know that this protein is bad for you, if you have too much it kills brains cells. So we have an idea that if you lower levels of this protein it might be an approach to stop or shield those cells from cell death.

We are using CRISPR gene editing technology to approach this. In the Parkinson’s field this idea of down-regulation of alpha-synuclein protein isn’t new, but previous approaches worked at the protein level, trying to get rid of it by using, for example, immunotherapy. But instead of attacking the protein after it has been produced we are starting at the genomic level. We want to use CRISPR as a way to down-regulate the expression of the protein, in the same way we use a light dimmer to lower the level of light in a room.

But this is a balancing act. Too much of the protein is bad, but so is too little. We know if you get rid of the protein altogether you get negative effects, you cause complications. So we want to find the right level and that’s complex because the right level might vary from person to person.

We are starting with the most extreme levels, with people who have twice as much of this protein as is normal. Once we understand that better, then we can look at people who have levels that are still higher than normal but not at the upper levels we see in early-onset Parkinson’s. They have more subtle changes in their production or expression of this protein. It’s a little bit of a juggling act and it might be different for different patients. We start with the most severe ones and work our way to the most common ones.

One of the frustrations I often hear from patients is that this is all taking so long. Why is that?

Parkinson’s has been overall frustrating for researchers as well. Around 100 years ago, Dr. Lewy first described the protein deposits and the main neuropathology in Parkinson’s. About 20 years ago, mutations in the alpha-synuclein gene were discovered, and now we know approximately 30 genes that are associated with, or can cause Parkinson’s. But it was all very descriptive. It told us what is going on but not why.

Maybe we thought it was straight forward and maybe researchers only focused on what we knew at that point. In 1957, the neurotransmitter dopamine was identified and since the 1960s people have focused on Parkinson’s as a dopamine-deficient problem because we saw the amazing effects L-Dopa had on patients and how it could help ease their symptoms.

But I would say in the last 15 years we have looked at it more closely and realized it’s more complicated than that. There’s also a loss of sense of smell, there’s insomnia, episodes of depression, and other things that are not physical symptoms. In the last 10 years or so we have really put the pieces together and now see Parkinson’s as a multi-system disease with neuronal cell death and specific protein deposits called Lewy Bodies. These Lewy Bodies contain alpha-synuclein and you find them in the brain, the gut and the heart and these are organs people hadn’t looked at because no one made the connection that constipation or depression could be linked to the disease. It turns out that Parkinson’s is much more complicated than just a problem in one particular region of the brain.

The other reason for slow progress is that we don’t have really good models for the disease that are predictive for clinical outcomes. This is why probably many clinical trials in the neurodegenerative field have failed to date. Now we have human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) from people with Parkinson’s, and iPSC-derived neurons allow us to better model the disease in the lab, and understand its underlying mechanisms  more deeply. The technology has now advanced so that the ability to differentiate these cells into nerve cells is better, so that you now have iPSC-derived neurons in a dish that are functionally active, and that act and behave like dopamine-producing neurons in the brain. This is an important advance.

Will this lead to a clinical trial?

That’s the idea, that’s our hope.

We are working with professor Dr. Deniz Kirik at the University of Lund in Sweden. He’s an expert in the field of viral vectors that can be used in humans – it’s a joint grant between us – and so what we learn from the human iPS cultures, he’ll transfer to an animal model and use his gene vector technology to see if we can see the same effects in vivo, in mice.

We are using a very special Parkinson’s mouse model – developed at UC San Francisco – that has the complete human genomic structure of the alpha-synuclein gene. If all goes well, we hope that ultimately we could be ready in a couple of years to think about preclinical testing and then clinical trials.

What are your hopes for the future?

My hope is that I can contribute to stopping disease progression in Parkinson’s. If we can develop a drug that can get rid of accumulated protein in someone’s brain that should stop the cells from dying. If someone has early onset PD and a slight tremor and minor walking problems, stopping the disease and having a low dose of dopamine therapy to control symptoms is almost a cure.

The next step is to develop better biomarkers to identify people at risk of developing Parkinson’s, so if you know someone is a few years away from developing symptoms, and you have the tools in place, you can start treatment early and stop the disease from kicking in, even before you clinically have symptoms.

Thinking about people who have been diagnosed with a disease, who are ten years into the disease, who already have side effects from the disease, it’s a little harder to think of regenerative medicine, using embryonic or iPSCs for this. I think that it will take longer to see results with this approach, but that’s the long-term hope for the future. There are many  groups working in this space, which is critical to advance the field.

Why is Parkinson’s Awareness Month important?

It’s important because, while a lot of people know about the disease, there are also a lot of misconceptions about Parkinson’s.

Parkinson’s is confused with Alzheimer’s or dementia and cognitive problems, especially the fact that it’s more than just a gait and movement problem, that it affects many other parts of the body too.