Stem Cell Patient Advocates, Scientists and Doctors Unite Around a Common Cause

Some phrases just bring a smile to your face: “It’s a girl/boy”, “Congratulations, you got the job”, and “Another beer sir?” (or maybe that last one is just me). One other phrase that makes me smile is “packed house”. That’s why I was smiling so much at our Patient Advocate Event at UC San Diego last week. The room was jammed with around 150 patients and patient advocates who had come to hear about the progress being made in stem cell research.

Jonathan Thomas, Chair of the CIRM governing Board, kicked off the event with a quick run-through of our research, focusing on our clinical trials. As we have now funded 29 clinical trials, it really was a quick run-through, but JT did focus on a couple of remarkable stories of cures for patients suffering from Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID) and Chronic Granulomatous Disease.

His message was simple. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go to fulfill our mission of accelerating stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs. We have a target of 40 new clinical trials by 2020 and JT stressed our determination to do everything we can to reach that goal.

David Higgins, Parkinson’s Disease Advocate and CIRM Board Member (Credit Cory Kozlovich, UCSD)

Next up was David Higgins, who has a unique perspective. David is a renowned scientist, he’s also the Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s disease on the CIRM Board, and he has Parkinson’s disease. David gave a heartfelt presentation on the changing role of the patient and their growing impact on health and science.

In the old days, David said, the patient was merely the recipient of whatever treatment a doctor determined was appropriate. Today, that relationship is much more like a partnership, with physician and patient working together to determine the best approach.

He said CIRM tries to live up to that model by engaging the voice of the patient and patient advocate at every stage of the approval process, from shaping concepts to assessing the scientific merits of a project and deciding whether to fund it, and then doing everything we can to help it succeed.

He said California can serve as the model, but that patients need to make their voices heard at the national level too, particularly in light of the proposed huge budget cuts for the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Jennifer Braswell. (Credit Cory Kozlovich, UCSD)

U.C. San Diego’s Dr. Jennifer Braswell gave some great advice on clinical trials, focusing on learning how to tell a good trial from a questionable one, and the questions patients need to ask before agreeing to be part of one.

She said it has to:

  • Be at a highly regarded medical center
  • Be based on strong pre-clinical evidence
  • Involved well-informed and compassionate physicians and nurses
  • Acknowledge that it carries some risk.

“You all know that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone says a clinical trial carries no risk that’s a red flag, you know that’s not true. There is risk. Good researchers work hard to reduce the risk as much as possible, but you cannot eliminate it completely.”

She said even sites such as www.clinicaltrials.gov – a list of all the clinical trials registered with the National Institutes of Health – have to be approached cautiously and that you should talk to your own physican before signing up for anything.

Finally, UC San Diego’s Dr. Catriona Jamieson talked about her research into blood cancers, and how her work would not have been possible without the support of CIRM. She also highlighted the growing number of trials being carried out at through the CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network, which helps scientists and researchers share knowledge and resources, enabling them to improve the quality of the care they provide patients.

The audience asked the panelists some great questions about the need for;

  • A national patient database to make it easier to recruit people for clinical trials
  • For researchers to create a way of letting people know if they didn’t get into a clinical trial so the patients wouldn’t get their hopes up
  • For greater public education about physicians or clinics offering unproven therapies

Adrienne Shapiro, an advocate for sickle cell disease patients, asks a question at Thursday’s stem cell meeting in La Jolla. (Bradley J. Fikes)

The meeting showed the tremendous public interest in stem cell research, and the desire to move it ahead even faster.

This was the first of a series of free public events we are holding around California this year. Next up, Los Angeles. More details of that shortly.

Listening is fine. Action is better. Why patients want more than just a chance to have their say.

FDA

Type in the phrase “the power of the patient voice” in any online search engine and you’ll generate thousands of articles and posts about the importance of listening to what patients have to say. The articles are on websites run by a diverse group from patients and researchers, to advocacy organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Everyone it seems recognizes the importance of listening to what the patient says. Even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has gotten in on the act. But what isn’t as clear is does all that talking and listening lead to any action?

In the last few years the FDA launched its ‘Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative’, a series of public meetings where FDA officials invited patients and patient advocates to a public meeting to offer their perspectives on their condition and the available therapies. Each meeting focused on a different disease or condition, 20 in all, ranging from Parkinson’s and breast cancer to Huntington’s and sickle cell disease.

The meetings followed a standard format. Patients and patient advocates were invited to talk about the disease in question and its impact on their life, and then to comment on the available treatments and what they would like to see happen that could make their life better.

The FDA then gathered all those observations and comments, including some submitted online, and put them together in a report. Here’s where you can find all 20 FDA Voice of the Patient reports.  The reports all end with a similar concluding paragraph. Here’s what the conclusion for the Parkinson’s patient report said:

“The insight provided during this meeting will aid in FDA’s understanding of what patients truly value in a treatment and inform the agency’s evaluation of the benefits and risk of future treatments for Parkinson’s disease patients.”

And now what? That’s the question many patients and patient advocates are asking. I spoke with several people who were involved in these meetings and all came away feeling that the FDA commissioners who held the hearings were sincere and caring. But none believe it has made any difference, that it has led to any changes in policy.

For obvious reasons none of those I spoke to wanted to be identified. They don’t want to do anything that could in any way jeopardize a potential treatment for their condition. But many felt the hearings were just window dressing, that the FDA held them because it was required by Congress to do so. The Ageny, however, is not required to act on the conclusions or make any changes based on the hearings. And that certainly seems to be what’s happened.

Producing a report is fine. But if that report then gets put on a shelf and ignored what is the value of it? Patients and patient advocates want their voices to be heard. But more importantly they want what they say to lead to some action, to have some positive outcome. Right now they are wondering if they were invited to speak, but no one was really listening.

 

 

Could the Answer to Treating Parkinson’s Disease Come From Within the Brain?

Sometimes a solution to a disease doesn’t come in the form of a drug or a stem cell therapy, but from within ourselves.

Yesterday, scientists from the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden reported an alternative strategy for treating Parkinson’s disease that involves reprogramming specific cells in the brain into the nerve cells killed off by the disease. Their method, which involves delivering reprogramming genes into brain cells called astrocytes, was able to alleviate motor symptoms associated with Parkinson’s disease in mice.

What is Parkinson’s Disease and how is it treated?

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that’s characterized by the death of dopamine-producing nerve cells (called dopaminergic neurons) in an area of the brain that controls movement.

Dopaminergic neurons grown in a culture dish. (Image courtesy of Faria Zafar, Parkinson’s Institute).

PD patients experience tremors in their hands, arms and legs, have trouble starting and stopping movement, struggle with maintaining balance and have issues with muscle stiffness. These troublesome symptoms are caused by a lack dopamine, a chemical made by dopaminergic neurons, which signals to the part of the brain that controls how a person initiates and coordinates movement.

Over 10 million people in the world are affected by PD and current therapies only treat the symptoms of the disease rather than prevent its progression. Many of these treatments involve drugs that replace the lost dopamine in the brain, but these drugs lose their effectiveness over time as the disease kills off more neurons, and they come with their own set of side effects.

Another strategy for treating Parkinson’s is replacing the lost dopaminergic neurons through cell-based therapies. However this research is still in its early stages and would require patients to undergo immunosuppressive therapy because the stem cell transplants would likely be allogeneic (from a donor) rather than autologous (from the same individual).

Drug and cell-based therapies both involve taking something outside the body and putting it in, hoping that it does the right thing and prevents the disease. But what about using what’s already inside the human body to fight off PD?

This brings us to today’s study where scientists reprogrammed brain cells in vivo (meaning inside a living organism) to produce dopamine in mice with symptoms that mimic Parkinson’s. Their method, which was published in the journal Nature Biotechnology, was successful in alleviating some of the Parkinson’s-related movement problems the mice had. This study was funded in part by a CIRM grant and received a healthy amount of coverage in the media including STATnews, San Diego Union-Tribune and Scientific American.

Reprogramming the brain to make more dopamine

Since Shinya Yamanaka published his seminal paper on reprogramming adult somatic cells into induced pluripotent stem cells, scientists have taken the building blocks of his technology a step further to reprogram one adult cell type into another. This process is called “direct reprogramming” or “transdifferentiation”. It involves delivering a specific cocktail of genes into cells that rewrite the cells identity, effectively turning them into the cell type desired.

The Karolinska team found that three genes: NEUROD1, ASCL1 and LMX1A combined with a microRNA miR218 were able to reprogram human astrocytes into induced dopaminergic neurons (iDANs) in a lab dish. These neurons looked and acted like the real thing and gave the scientists hope that this combination of factors could reprogram astrocytes into iDANs in the brain.

The next step was to test these factors in mice with Parkinson’s disease. These mice were treated with a drug that killed off their dopaminergic neurons giving them Parkinson’s-like symptoms. The team used viruses to deliver the reprogramming cocktail to astrocytes in the brain. After a few weeks, the scientists observed that some of the “infected” astrocytes developed into iDANs and these newly reprogrammed neurons functioned properly, and more importantly, helped reverse some of the motor symptoms observed in these mice.

This study offers a new potential way to treat Parkinson’s by reprogramming cells in the brain into the neurons that are lost to the disease. While this research is still in its infancy, the scientists plan to improve the safety of their technology so that it can eventually be tested in humans.

Bonus Blog Interview for World Parkinson’s Day

Ernest Arenas, Karolinska Institutet

In honor of World Parkinson’s day (April 11th), I’m providing a bonus blog interview about this research. I reached out to the senior author of this study, Dr. Ernest Arenas, to ask him a few more questions about his publication and the future studies his team is planning.

Q) What are the major findings of your current study and how do they advance research on Parkinson’s disease?

The current treatment for Parkinson’s disease (PD) is symptomatic and does not change the course of the disease. Cell replacement therapies, such as direct in vivo reprogramming of in situ [local] astrocytes into dopamine (DA) neurons, work by substituting the cells lost by disease and have the potential to halt or even reverse motor alterations in PD.

Q) Can you comment on the potential for gene therapy treatments for Parkinson’s patients?

We see direct in vivo reprogramming of brain astrocytes into dopamine neurons in situ as a possible future alternative to DA cell transplantation. This method represents a gene therapy approach to cell replacement since we use a virus to deliver four reprogramming factors. In this method, the donor cells are in the host brain and there is no need to search for donor cells and no cell transplantation or immunosuppression. The method for the moment is an experimental prototype and much more needs to be done in order to improve efficiency, safety and to translate it to humans.

Q) Will reprogrammed iDANs be susceptible to Parkinson’s disease over time?

As any other cell replacement therapy, the cells would be, in principle, susceptible to Parkinson’s disease. It has been found that PD catches up with transplanted cells in 15-20 years. We think that this is a sufficiently long therapeutic window.

In addition, direct in vivo reprogramming may also be performed with drug-inducible constructs that could be activated years after, as disease progresses. This might allow adding more cells by turning on the reprogramming factors with pharmacological treatment to the host. This was not tested in our study but the basic technology to develop such strategies currently exist.

Q) What are your plans for future studies and translating this research towards the clinic?

In our experiments, we used transgenic mice in order to test our approach and to ensure that we only reprogrammed astrocytes. There is a lot that still needs to be done in order to develop this approach as a therapy for Parkinson’s disease. This includes improving the efficiency and the safety of the method, as well as developing a strategy suitable for therapy in humans. This can be achieved by further improving the reprogramming cocktail, by using a virus with a selective tropism [affinity] for astrocytes and that do not incorporate the constructs into the DNA of the host cell, as well as using constructs with astrocyte-specific promoters and capable of self-regulating depending on the cell context.

Our study demonstrates for the first time that it is possible to use direct reprogramming of host brain cells in order to rescue neurological symptoms. These results indicate that direct reprogramming has the potential to become a novel therapeutic approach for Parkinson’s disease and opens new opportunities for the treatment of patients with neurological disorders.

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.

Using stem cells to fix bad behavior in the brain

 

finkbeiner-skibinski-16x9-13

Gladstone Institutes Steven Finkbeiner and Gaia Skibinski: Photo courtesy Chris Goodfellow, Gladstone Institutes

Diseases of the brain have many different names, from Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to ALS and Huntington’s, but they often have similar causes. Researchers at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco are using that knowledge to try and find an approach that might be effective against all of these diseases. In a new CIRM-funded study, they have identified one protein that could help do just that.

Many neurodegenerative diseases are caused by faulty proteins, which start to pile up and cause damage to neurons, the brain cells that are responsible for processing and transmitting information. Ultimately, the misbehaving proteins cause those cells to die.

The researchers at the Gladstone found a way to counter this destructive process by using a protein called Nrf2. They used neurons from humans (made from induced pluripotent stem cells – iPSCs – hence the stem cell connection here) and rats. They then tested these cells in neurons that were engineered to have two different kinds of mutations found in  Parkinson’s disease (PD) plus the Nrf2 protein.

Using a unique microscope they designed especially for this study, they were able to track those transplanted neurons and monitor what happened to them over the course of a week.

The neurons that expressed Nrf2 were able to render one of those PD-causing proteins harmless, and remove the other two mutant proteins from the brain cells.

In a news release to accompany the study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, first author Gaia Skibinski, said Nrf2 acts like a house-cleaner brought in to tidy up a mess:

“Nrf2 coordinates a whole program of gene expression, but we didn’t know how important it was for regulating protein levels until now. Over-expressing Nrf2 in cellular models of Parkinson’s disease resulted in a huge effect. In fact, it protects cells against the disease better than anything else we’ve found.”

Steven Finkbeiner, the senior author on the study and a Gladstone professor, said this model doesn’t just hold out hope for treating Parkinson’s disease but for treating a number of other neurodegenerative problems:

“I am very enthusiastic about this strategy for treating neurodegenerative diseases. We’ve tested Nrf2 in models of Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and ALS, and it is the most protective thing we’ve ever found. Based on the magnitude and the breadth of the effect, we really want to understand Nrf2 and its role in protein regulation better.”

The next step is to use this deeper understanding to identify other proteins that interact with Nrf2, and potentially find ways to harness that knowledge for new therapies for neurodegenerative disorders.

Another way to dial back stem cell hype (but not hope): Put a dollar figure on it

In an effort to reign in the hype surrounding stem cell research that has led to a proliferation of unapproved and potentially dangerous stem cell therapies, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) recently released updated guidelines outlining conduct for stem cell researchers that,  for the first time, included communications activities.  At only 1.5 pages in the 37-page document, the statements around communications asked researchers, communications professionals, institutions and the media to be more proactive in combatting stem cell hype by ensuring accuracy and balance in communications activities.

Stock Image

Stock Image

It’s too early to know what the full impact of the guidelines will be, however, the communications recommendations did generate a good deal of interest and some media, at least, have taken steps to address the issue.

Whether directly influenced by the guidelines or not, in the final plenary session of the ISSCR annual meeting last week, Professor Roger Barker, a research-clinician at the University of Cambridge, provided a candid portrayal of some of the challenges of preclinical and early clinical research.

Though he may have poked a small hole in some of the optimism that characterized the four-day conference, in providing a rare glimpse of the real costs of research, Dr. Barker might also have given us a new way to frame research to downplay hype.

Dr. Roger Barker

Dr. Roger Barker

Dr. Barker is one of many researchers across the globe working on a potential cell-based treatment for Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinson’s is a rather straightforward disease to tackle in this way, because its cause is known: the death of cells that produce the chemical dopamine. Even so, the challenges in developing a treatment are many. Apart from the design of a clinical study (which includes, for example, careful selection of the Parkinson’s patients to include; as Barker pointed out, there are two main types of Parkinson progression and one type may respond to a treatment while the other may not. This is a real concern for Barker, who commented that “a lack of rigour in selecting patients has dogged the field for the past 25 years.”), there are several other factors that need to be addressed in the pre-clinical work, such as identifying the best type of cells to use, how to scale them up and make them both GMP-compliant and standardized for reproducibility.

Such work, Barker estimated, costs between £2 and £3 million (or roughly $3-5 million, valued at pre-Brexit currency rates, one would assume). And, having invested so much to this point, you don’t even have something that can be published yet.

Running the actual clinical phase 1 study, with roughly 20 patients, will cost millions more. If it doesn’t work, you’re back to lab and in search of more pre-clinical funding.

But, assuming the study nets the desired results, it’s still only looking at safety, not efficacy. Getting it to phases 2 and 3 costs several orders of magnitude more. Put in this light, the $3 billion USD given to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine seems like not nearly enough. The Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s $25 million CAD is nothing at all. Not that we aren’t grateful — we do what we can to maximize impact and make even a small investment worthwhile. Every step counts.

Another point to consider is whether the final therapy will be more cost-effective than existing, approved medical interventions. If it’s not, there is little incentive in pursuing it. This is the notion of headroom that I’ve heard discussed more directly at commercialization-based conferences (and is very well explained here) but is one that will become increasingly relevant to research as more basic and translational work finds its way into the clinic.

Talking about money with regard to health can be seen as tedious and even crass. The three short talks given by patient advocates at the ISSCR meeting served to emphasize this – each outlined personal tragedy connected to illness or disease: congestive heart failure at 11 years of age, four generations of a family with sickle cell disease, retinitis pigmentosa that derailed a young woman’s budding career. You simply can’t put a price on a person’s life, happiness and well-being. Each of these patients, and millions more, have hope that research will find an answer. It’s a lofty goal, one that is sometimes hard to remember in the lab trenches when a grant doesn’t materialize or a negative result sends the work back to ground zero.

And therein lies some of the tension that can easily lead to hype. We do want to fly high. We do want to deliver cures and therapies. We need to be reminded, by interactions with the patient community, of what’s at stake and what we can gain for humanity. The field should and will continue to strive to achieve these goals.

But not without responsibility. And a dose of realism.


This post appears simultaneously on OIRM Expression and appears here with permission by the author Lisa Willemse.

What’s the big idea? Or in this case, what’s the 19 big ideas?

supermarket magazineHave you ever stood in line in a supermarket checkout line and browsed through the magazines stacked conveniently at eye level? (of course you have, we all have). They are always filled with attention-grabbing headlines like “5 Ways to a Slimmer You by Christmas” or “Ten Tips for Rock Hard Abs” (that one doesn’t work by the way).

So with those headlines in mind I was tempted to headline our latest Board meeting as: “19 Big Stem Cell Ideas That Could Change Your Life!”. And in truth, some of them might.

The Board voted to invest more than $4 million in funding for 19 big ideas as part of CIRM’s Discovery Inception program. The goal of Inception is to provide seed funding for great, early-stage ideas that may impact the field of human stem cell research but need a little support to test if they work. If they do work out, the money will also enable the researchers to gather the data they’ll need to apply for larger funding opportunities, from CIRM and other institutions, in the future

The applicants were told they didn’t have to have any data to support their belief that the idea would work, but they did have to have a strong scientific rational for why it might

As our President and CEO Randy Mills said in a news release, this is a program that encourages innovative ideas.

Randy Mills, Stem Cell Agency President & CEO

Randy Mills, CIRM President & CEO

“This is a program supporting early stage ideas that have the potential to be ground breaking. We asked scientists to pitch us their best new ideas, things they want to test but that are hard to get funding for. We know not all of these will pan out, but those that do succeed have the potential to advance our understanding of stem cells and hopefully lead to treatments in the future.”

So what are some of these “big” ideas? (Here’s where you can find the full list of those approved for funding and descriptions of what they involve). But here are some highlights.

Alysson Muotri at UC San Diego has identified some anti-retroviral drugs – already approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – that could help stop inflammation in the brain. This kind of inflammation is an important component in several diseases such as Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, Lupus and Multiple Sclerosis. Alysson wants to find out why and how these drugs helps reduce inflammation and how it works. If he is successful it is possible that patients suffering from brain inflammation could immediately benefit from some already available anti-retroviral drugs.

Stanley Carmichael at UC Los Angeles wants to use induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells – these are adult cells that have been genetically re-programmed so they are capable of becoming any cell in the body – to see if they can help repair the damage caused by a stroke. With stroke the leading cause of adult disability in the US, there is clearly a big need for this kind of big idea.

Holger Willenbring at UC San Francisco wants to use stem cells to create a kind of mini liver, one that can help patients whose own liver is being destroyed by disease. The mini livers could, theoretically, help stabilize a person’s own liver function until a transplant donor becomes available or even help them avoid the need for liver transplantation in the first place. Considering that every year, one in five patients on the US transplant waiting list will die or become too sick for transplantation, this kind of research could have enormous life-saving implications.

We know not all of these ideas will work out. But all of them will help deepen our understanding of how stem cells work and what they can, and can’t, do. Even the best ideas start out small. Our funding gives them a chance to become something truly big.


Related Links:

Approach that inspires DREADD could create new way to treat Parkinson’s disease

4093259323_32082865d7

Dopamine producing brain nerve cells, made from embryonic stem cells

Imagine having a treatment for Parkinson’s that acts like a light switch, enabling you to turn it on or off depending on your needs. Well, that’s what researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have come up with. And if it works, it might help change the way we treat many other diseases.

For years researchers have been trying to come up with a way of replacing the dopamine-producing brain nerve cells, or neurons, that are attacked and destroyed by Parkinson’s. Those cells regulate movement and as they are destroyed they diminish a person’s ability to control their body, their movement and even their emotions.

Attempts to transplant dopamine-producing cells into the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease have met with mixed results. In some cases the transplanted cells have worked. In many cases the cells don’t make enough dopamine to control movement. In about 10 percent of cases the cells make too much dopamine, causing uncontrolled movements called graft-induced dyskinesia.

But now the researchers at UW Madison have found a new approach that might change that. Using the gene-editing tool CRISPR (you can read about that here) they reprogrammed embryonic stem cells to become two different types of neurons containing a kind of genetic switch called a DREADD, which stands for designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drug. When they gave mice the designer drug they created to activate DREADD, one group of cells boosted production of dopamine, the other group shut down its dopamine production.

In a news release about the study, which is published in the journal Cell Stem Cell, lead author Su-Chun Zhang says this kind of control is essential in developing safe, effective therapies:

“If we are going to use cell therapy, we need to know what the transplanted cell will do. If its activity is not right, we may want to activate it, or we may need to slow or stop it.”

Zhang says the cells developed using this approach have another big advantage:

“We can turn them on or off, up or down, using a designer drug that can only act on cells that express the designer receptor. The drug does not affect any host cell because they don’t have that specialized receptor. It’s a very clean system.”

Tests in mice showed that the cells, and the designer drug, worked as the researchers hoped they would with some cells producing more dopamine, and others halting production.

It’s an encouraging start but a lot more work needs to be done to make sure the the genetically engineered stem cells, and the designer drug, are safe and that they can get the cells to go to the part of the brain that needs increased dopamine production.

As Zhang says, having a method of remotely controlling the action of transplanted cells, one that is reversible, could create a whole new way of treating diseases.

“This is the first proof of principle, using Parkinson’s disease as the model, but it may apply to many other diseases, and not just neurological diseases.”

Two National Parkinson’s Disease Organizations Join Forces

David Higgins, Parkinson's advocate and CIRM Board member

David Higgins, Parkinson’s advocate and CIRM Board member

Guest blogger David R. Higgins, PhD, is a Parkinson’s Patient Advocate and a CIRM ICOC board member.

Two national Parkinson’s organizations have decided to join forces: The Parkinson’s Action Network (PAN) will be integrated into The Michael J. Fox Foundation (MJFF). Both have served the Parkinson’s community in separate and important ways, but as MJFF CEO Todd Sherer said in a joint press release, “Working as a single entity, MJFF and PAN will bring the passion and commitment of our joint community to bear on articulating and advancing key public policy priorities affecting millions of PD patients and families.”

Michael J. Fox Foundationmjff_vert_rgb_logo_300

Best known for its namesake founder and mission to fund Parkinson’s research, MJFF has awarded more than $450 million to fund Parkinson’s research. MJFF has distinguished itself as a fundraising giant and has kept their eye on their goal of funding high-quality PD research always with the goal of a cure in mind. In addition to funding research, the MJFF is known for its database of Parkinson’s related clinical trials, which it vets and makes available to anyone interested through a system that works a lot like a matchmaking service (i.e. the right trial for the right person based on personal preferences and interests). To learn more about the MJFF follow the link: https://www.michaeljfox.org.

Parkinson’s Action Networksite-header2

PAN has been a Washington, DC-based organization created to be a single voice for a united Parkinson’s community, with a proven track record for effective advocacy for federal legislation and policy that considers the needs of the Parkinson’s community. We used to call this “lobbying”, now we call it “advocacy”. To learn more about PAN follow the link: http://parkinsonsaction.org.

One + One = ThreePAN-MJFF-homepage-img

Integration of PAN into MJFF creates a Parkinson’s patient advocacy trifecta that brings together the strengths of each organization: patient care (access, knowledge, education), research support (fundraising to support research, new therapies and ultimately a cure) and political action (legislation and public policy supporting the Parkinson’s community).

The merged organization will have two groups of advisors, the Unified Parkinson’s Advocacy Council, which will maintain a single voice for advocacy, and a Public Policy Council, which will provide guidance and advice on policy strategies that are important to the Parkinson’s community. While MJFF will continue to be based in NYC, for the first time they will also have an office in Washington, DC. You can read more about the merge here.

PAN and CIRM Have Common Roots

As it turns out there is a strong connection between PAN and CIRM. California attorney and Parkinson’s patient Joan Samuelson founded PAN in 1991. Samuelson described her “surge of excitement” in 1990 when she read about a possible breakthrough in Parkinson’s therapies that used tissue transplants, and how that hope was “swept away” when she read about a federal policy banning any federal support for such research.

PAN was Samuelson’s brainchild and reflected her prescient vision that it would take a political effort at the national level to counter this anti-tissue transplant movement. PAN became famous for its national network of grassroots organizers who could muster thousands of calls to Congress with a day’s notice to voice support or opposition to legislation.

It should come as no surprise that Samuelson was a supporter of California’s Proposition 71 that voters approved in 2004, creating CIRM. Samuelson became CIRM’s first Parkinson Patient Advocate and served in that role until 2014. She was a famously outspoken member of the ICOC (CIRM’s governing Board) and supporter of the Parkinson’s community.

I am humbled to be the one to follow her as the Parkinson’s Patient Advocate on the ICOC, but have no illusions that Samuelson didn’t just leave “big” shoes behind to fill, she left behind shoes so big a family of four could live in them! Samuelson lives in retirement in Sonoma County, CA. I met her once, but never knew her other than by reputation. Words I have heard used to describe her include character, integrity, brilliance, tenacity and one who conveys a sense of urgency for making the world a better place for Parkinson’s patients.

Today, there is not yet a cure, but there is plenty of hope.


 

Notes on Parkinson’s disease

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive disease that affects the nervous system and for which there is no cure. Over a million people in the US are known to have this debilitating disease. PD is a type of movement disorder, characterized by so-called motor symptoms including too little, too much, or inappropriate movements of the body. Motor symptoms are attributed to the death of specialized cells in a part of the brain that controls movement. These cells produce dopamine, a chemical that allows these specialized nerve cells to “talk” to each other and thus direct movement. What causes these cells to die is an active area of research, including CIRM-funded research. Our understanding of PD has gotten more sophisticated and we now understand that in addition to motor symptoms there are so-called non-motor symptoms. Non-motor symptoms include severe fatigue, insomnia, depression, anxiety, mild cognitive impairment and dementia among others. PD patients often report that non-motor symptoms impact the quality of their lives more than motor symptoms.

How do you know what patients want if you never even ask them?

Picture1

Our mission at CIRM is to accelerate stem treatments to patients with unmet medical needs. But what if those needs are not just unmet, they’re also unknown? What happens when those developing treatments never even bother to ask those they are trying to help if this is what they really need, or want?

The question came up during a panel discussion at a meeting of the CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinics Network in San Diego earlier this month. David Higgins, a CIRM Board member and a Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s disease, highlighted the problem saying that if you ask most people what they think is the biggest problem for Parkinson’s sufferers, they would probably say the movement disorders such as tremors and muscle rigidity. But David said that if you ask people who have Parkinson’s what their biggest problems are, then movement disorder probably wouldn’t even come in the top five concerns that they really have.

David listed insomnia, severe fatigue, anxiety, and depression as far more pressing and important:

“Researchers study what they know and they look to solve the things they think they can solve, and it is sometimes very different than the things that patients would like them to solve to ease their concerns.”

That sparked a fascinating discussion about the gap between what researchers and scientists sometimes think they should be doing, the kinds of treatments they should be trying to develop, and what the people who have those conditions really want.

David Parry, who is with GlaxoSmithKline and worked in drug development and discovery for most of his career, said:

“If I told you how many times I sat in meetings with my medical discovery group and talked about what our targets should be then we’d be here all night. We focus on what we know, what we think we can fix and what will work, when maybe we need to be more mindful of what could really make a difference in the life of patients.”

Alpha clinic panelAlpha Stem Cell Clinics Network panel discussion: Left David Higgins, David Parry, Catriona Jamieson, John Zaia, John Adams

Clearly there is a gap between what we think we can fix and what we should try and fix, and the best way to close that gap is to have a conversation.

Patients and Patient Advocates need to speak up and tell researchers what their main concerns and problems are, to help the scientists understand that while they would dearly love something that saves their life, they would also appreciate something that helps improve the quality of their lives.

Researchers too need to take a step back and not just get caught up in the search for an answer to a scientific or medical puzzle, without first asking “is this a puzzle that people want solved?”

At CIRM we work hard to make sure the voices of the patients and Patient Advocates are heard at every level of the work we do; from deciding what to fund to how to design a clinical trial involving our funding. But clearly it’s important that those voices be heard at a much earlier stage, to help shape the direction the research takes long before it comes to us for funding.

Breaking down barriers

For too long there has been a communications barrier between researchers and patients. This is not something that was deliberately constructed, it is something that simply evolved over time. Now it’s time to break down that barrier, and make sure both groups are talking to each other.

When it comes to developing treatments for deadly diseases and disorders, patients and researchers should think of themselves as partners. Researchers put their minds to work developing these treatments. Patients put their bodies on the line testing them.

Without the research there is no hope. Without the patients there is no proof. So, let’s start talking to each other.

If you have any thoughts or suggestions on how we can get this conversation started we would love to hear from you.