Показаны сообщения с ярлыком bioengineering. Показать все сообщения
Показаны сообщения с ярлыком bioengineering. Показать все сообщения

суббота, 10 апреля 2021 г.

10 Breakthrough Technologies 2021. 1. Messenger RNA vaccines

the Editors

This list marks 20 years since we began compiling an annual selection of the year’s most important technologies. Some, such as mRNA vaccines, are already changing our lives, while others are still a few years off. Below, you’ll find a brief description along with a link to a feature article that probes each technology in detail. We hope you’ll enjoy and explore—taken together, we believe this list represents a glimpse into our collective future.

Messenger RNA vaccines


 
SELMAN DESIGN

We got very lucky. The two most effective vaccines against the coronavirus are based on messenger RNA, a technology that has been in the works for 20 years. When the covid-19 pandemic began last January, scientists at several biotech companies were quick to turn to mRNA as a way to create potential vaccines; in late December 2020, at a time when more than 1.5 million had died from covid-19 worldwide, the vaccines were approved in the US, marking the beginning of the end of the pandemic.

The new covid vaccines are based on a technology never before used in therapeutics, and it could transform medicine, leading to vaccines against various infectious diseases, including malaria. And if this coronavirus keeps mutating, mRNA vaccines can be easily and quickly modified. Messenger RNA also holds great promise as the basis for cheap gene fixes to sickle-cell disease and HIV. Also in the works: using mRNA to help the body fight off cancers. Antonio Regalado explains the history and medical potential of the exciting new science of messenger RNA.

The next act for messenger RNA could be bigger than covid vaccines

New messenger RNA vaccines to fight the coronavirus are based on a technology that could transform medicine. Next up: sickle cell and HIV.

On December 23, as part of a publicity push to encourage people to get vaccinated against covid-19, the University of Pennsylvania released footage of two researchers who developed the science behind the shots, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman, getting their inoculations. The vaccines, icy concoctions of fatty spheres and genetic instructions, used a previously unproven technology based on messenger RNA and had been built and tested in under a year, thanks to discoveries the pair made starting 20 years earlier.

In the silent promotional clip, neither one speaks or smiles as a nurse inserts the hypodermic into their arms. I later asked Weissman, who has been a physician and working scientist since 1987, what he was thinking in that moment. “I always wanted to develop something that helps people,” he told me. “When they stuck that needle in my arm, I said, ‘I think I’ve finally done it.’”

The infection has killed more than 2 million people globally, including some of Weissman’s childhood friends. So far, the US vaccine campaign has relied entirely on shots developed by Moderna Therapeutics of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and BioNTech in Mainz, Germany, in partnership with Pfizer. Both employ Weissman’s discoveries. (Weissman’s lab gets funding from BioNTech, and Karikó now works at the company.)

Unlike traditional vaccines, which use live viruses, dead ones, or bits of the shells that viruses come cloaked in to train the body’s immune system, the new shots use messenger RNA—the short-lived middleman molecule that, in our cells, conveys copies of genes to where they can guide the making of proteins.

The message the mRNA vaccine adds to people’s cells is borrowed from the coronavirus itself—the instructions for the crown-like protein, called spike, that it uses to enter cells. This protein alone can’t make a person sick; instead, it prompts a strong immune response that, in large studies concluded in December, prevented about 95% of covid-19 cases.

Drew Weissman’s work with messenger RNA led to successful covid-19 vaccines.
JUSTIN JAMES MUIR

Beyond potentially ending the pandemic, the vaccine breakthrough is showing how messenger RNA may offer a new approach to building drugs.

In the near future, researchers believe, shots that deliver temporary instructions into cells could lead to vaccines against herpes and malaria, better flu vaccines, and, if the covid-19 germ keeps mutating, updated coronavirus vaccinations, too.

But researchers also see a future well beyond vaccines. They think the technology will permit cheap gene fixes for cancer, sickle-cell disease, and maybe even HIV.

For Weissman, the success of covid vaccines isn’t a surprise but a welcome validation of his life’s work. “We have been working on this for over 20 years,” he says. “We always knew RNA would be a significant therapeutic tool.”

Perfect timing

Despite those two decades of research, though, messenger RNA had never been used in any marketed drug before last year.

Then, in December 2019, the first reports emerged from Wuhan, China, about a scary transmissible pneumonia, most likely some kind of bat virus. Chinese government censors at first sought to cover up the outbreak, but on January 10, 2020, a Shanghai scientist posted the germ’s genetic code online through a contact in Australia. The virus was already moving quickly, jumping onto airplanes and popping up in Hong Kong and Thailand. But the genetic information moved even faster. It arrived in Mainz at the headquarters of BioNTech, and in Cambridge at Moderna, where some researchers got the readout as a Microsoft Word file.

Scientists at Moderna, a biotech specializing in messenger RNA, were able to design a vaccine on paper in 48 hours, 11 days before the US even had its first recorded case. Inside of six weeks, Moderna had chilled doses ready for tests in animals.

Unlike most biotech drugs, RNA is not made in fermenters or living cells—it’s produced inside plastic bags of chemicals and enzymes. Because there’s never been a messenger RNA drug on the market before, there was no factory to commandeer and no supply chain to call on.

When I spoke to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel in December, just before the US Food and Drug Administration authorized his company’s vaccine, he was feeling confident about the shot but worried about making enough of it. Moderna had promised to make up to a billion doses during 2021. Imagine, he said, that Henry Ford was rolling the first Model T off the production line, only to be told the world needed a billion of them.

Bancel calls the way covid-19 arrived just as messenger RNA technology was ready an “aberration of history.”

In other words, we got lucky.

Human bioreactors

The first attempt to use synthetic messenger RNA to make an animal produce a protein was in 1990. It worked but a big problem soon arose. The injections made mice sick. “Their fur gets ruffled. They lose weight, stop running around,” says Weissman. Give them a large dose, and they’d die within hours. “We quickly realized that messenger RNA was not usable,” he says.

The culprit was inflammation. Over a few billion years, bacteria, plants, and mammals have all evolved to spot the genetic material from viruses and react to it. Weissman and Karikó’s next step, which “took years,” he says, was to identify how cells were recognizing the foreign RNA.

As they found, cells are packed with sensing molecules that distinguish your RNA from that of a virus. If these molecules see viral genes, they launch a storm of immune molecules called cytokines that hold the virus at bay while your body learns to cope with it. “It takes a week to make an antibody response; what keeps you alive for those seven days is these sensors,” Weissman says. But too strong a flood of cytokines can kill you.

The eureka moment was when the two scientists determined they could avoid the immune reaction by using chemically modified building blocks to make the RNA. It worked. Soon after, in Cambridge, a group of entrepreneurs began setting up Moderna Therapeutics to build on Weissman’s insight.

Vaccines were not their focus. At the company’s founding in 2010, its leaders imagined they might be able to use RNA to replace the injected proteins that make up most of the biotech pharmacopoeia, essentially producing drugs inside the patient’s own cells from an RNA blueprint. “We were asking, could we turn a human into a bioreactor?” says Noubar Afeyan, the company’s cofounder and chairman and the head of Flagship Pioneering, a firm that starts biotech companies.

If so, the company could easily name 20, 30, or even 40 drugs that would be worth replacing. But Moderna was struggling with how to get the messenger RNA to the right cells in the body, and without too many side effects. Its scientists were also learning that administering repeat doses, which would be necessary to replace biotech blockbusters like a clotting factor that’s given monthly, was going to be a problem. “We would find it worked once, then the second time less, and then the third time even lower,” says Afeyan. “That was a problem.”

Moderna pivoted. What kind of drug could you give once and still have a big impact? The answer eventually became obvious: a vaccine. With a vaccine, the initial supply of protein would be enough to train the immune system in ways that could last years, or a lifetime.

A second major question was how to package the delicate RNA molecules, which last for only a couple of minutes if exposed. Weissman says he tried 40 different carriers, including water droplets, sugar, and proteins from salmon sperm. It was like Edison looking for the right filament to make an electric lamp. “Almost anything people published, we tried,” he says. Most promising were nanoparticles made from a mixture of fats. But these were secret commercial inventions and are still the basis of patent disputes. Weissman didn’t get his hands on them until 2014, after half a decade of attempts.

When he finally did, he loved what he saw. “They were better than anything else we had tried,” he says. “It had what you wanted in a drug. High potency, no adverse events.” By 2017, Weissman’s lab had shown how to vaccinate mice and monkeys against the Zika virus using messenger RNA, an effort that soon won funding from BioNTech. Moderna was neck and neck.  It quickly published results of an early human test of a new mRNA influenza vaccine and would initiate a large series of clinical studies involving diseases including Zika.

Pivoting to vaccines did have a drawback for Moderna. Andrew Lo, a professor at MIT’s Laboratory for Financial Engineering, says that most vaccines lose money. The reason is that many shots sell for a “fraction of their economic value.” Governments will pay $100,000 for a cancer drug that adds a month to a person’s life but only want to pay $5 for a vaccine that can protect against an infectious disease for good. Lo calculated that vaccine programs for emerging threats like Zika or Ebola, where outbreaks come and go, would deliver a -66% return on average. “The economic model for vaccines is broken,” he says.

On the other hand, vaccines are more predictable. When Lo’s team analyzed thousands of clinical trials, they found that vaccine programs frequently succeed. Around 40% of vaccine candidates in efficacy tests, called phase 2 clinical trials, proved successful, a rate 10 times that of cancer drugs.

Adding to mRNA vaccines’ chance of success was a lucky break. Injected into the arm, the nanoparticles holding the critical instructions seemed to home in on dendritic cells, the exact cell type whose job is to train the immune system to recognize a virus. What’s more, something about the particles put the immune system on alert. It wasn’t planned, but they were working as what’s called a vaccine adjuvant. “We couldn’t believe the effect,” says Weissman.

Vaccines offered Moderna’s CEO, Bancel, a chance to advance a phalanx of new products. Since every vaccine would use the same nanoparticle carrier, they could be rapidly reprogrammed, as if they were software. (Moderna had even trademarked the name “mRNA OS,” for operating system.) “The way we make mRNA for one vaccine is exactly the same as for another,” he says. “Because mRNA is an information molecule, the difference between our covid vaccine, Zika vaccine, and flu vaccine is only the order of the nucleotides.”

95% effective

Back in March 2020, when the vaccine programs were getting under way, skeptics said messenger RNA was still an unproven technology. Even this magazine said a vaccine would take 18 months, at a minimum—a projection that proved off by a full nine months. “Sometimes things take a long time just because people think it does,” says Afeyan. “That weighs on you as a scientific team. People are saying, ‘Don’t go any faster!’”

The shots from Moderna and BioNTech proved effective by December and were authorized that month in the US. But the record speed was not due only to the novel technology. Another reason was the prevalence of infection. Because so many people were catching covid-19, the studies were able to amass evidence quickly.

Is messenger RNA really a better vaccine? The answer seems to be a resounding yes. There are some side effects, but both shots are about 95% effective (that is, they stop 95 out of 100 cases), a record so far unmatched by other covid-19 vaccines and far better than the performance of flu vaccines. Another injection, made by AstraZeneca using an engineered cold virus, is around 75% effective. A shot developed in China using deactivated covid-19 germs protected only half the people who got it, although it did stop severe disease.

“This could change how we make vaccines from here on out,” says Ron Renaud, the CEO of Translate Bio, a company working with the technology.

The potency of the shots, and the ease with which they can be reprogrammed, mean researchers are already preparing to go after HIV, herpes, infant respiratory virus, and malaria—all diseases for which there’s no successful vaccine. Also on the drawing board: “universal” flu vaccines and what Weissman calls a “pan-coronavirus” shot that could offer basic protection against thousands of pathogens in that category, which have led not only to covid-19 but, before that, to the infection SARS and probably other pandemics throughout history.

“You have to assume we’re going to have more,” Weissman says. “So instead of shutting down the world for a year while you make a new vaccine, we’ll have a vaccine ready to go.”

Facilities of the biopharmaceutical company Lonza in Switzerland and New Hampshire, which are helping to manufacture Moderna’s vaccine.

Last spring, Bancel began petitioning the government to pay for vast manufacturing centers to make messenger RNA. He imagined a megafactory that “companies could use in peacetime” but that could be quickly reoriented to churn out shots during the next pandemic. That would be insurance, he says, against a nightmare scenario of a germ that spreads as fast as covid but has the 50% fatality rate of Ebola. If “governments spend billions on nuclear weapons they hope to never use,” Bancel argued in April, then “we should equip ourselves so this never happens again.”

Later that month, as part of Operation Warp Speed, the US effort to produce the vaccines, Moderna was effectively picked as a national champion to build such centers. The government handed it nearly $500 million to develop its vaccine and expand manufacturing.

Beyond vaccines

After the covid vaccines, some researchers expect Moderna and BioNTech to return to their original plans for the technology, like treating more conventional ailments such as heart attacks, cancer, or rare inherited diseases. But there’s no guarantee of success in that arena.

“Although there are a lot of potential therapeutic applications for synthetic mRNA in principle, in practice the problem of delivering sufficient amounts of mRNA to the right place in the body is going to be a huge and possibly insurmountable challenge in most cases,” says Luigi Warren, a biotech entrepreneur whose research as a postdoc formed the nucleus of Moderna.

There is one application in addition to vaccines, however, where brief exposure to messenger RNA could have effects lasting years, or even a lifetime.

In late 2019, before covid-19, the US National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced they would spend $200 million developing affordable gene therapies for use in sub-Saharan Africa. The top targets: HIV and sickle-cell disease, which are widespread there.

Gates and the NIH didn’t say how they would make such cutting-edge treatments cheap and easy to use, but Weissman told me that the plan may depend on using messenger RNA to add instructions for gene-editing tools like CRISPR to a person’s body, making permanent changes to the genome. Think of mass vaccination campaigns, says Weissman, except with gene editing to correct inherited disease.

Right now, gene therapy is complex and expensive. Since 2017, several types have been approved in the US and Europe. One, a treatment for blindness, in which viruses carry a new gene to the retina, costs $425,000 per eye.

A startup called Intellia Therapeutics is testing a treatment that packages CRISPR into RNA and then into a nanoparticle, with which it hopes to cure a painful inherited liver disease. The aim is to make the gene scissors appear in a person’s cells, cut out the problem gene, and then fade away. The company tested the drug on a patient for the first time in 2020.

It’s not a coincidence that Intellia is treating a liver disease. When dripped into the bloodstream through an IV, lipid nanoparticles tend to all end up in the liver—the body’s house-cleaning organ. “If you want to treat a liver disease, great—anything else, you have a problem,” says Weissman.

But Weissman says he’s figured out how to target the nanoparticles so that they wind up inside bone marrow, which constantly manufactures all red blood cells and immune cells. That would be a hugely valuable trick—so valuable that Weissman wouldn’t tell me how he does it. It’s a secret, he says, “until we get the patents filed.”

He intends to use this technique to try to cure sickle-cell disease by sending new instructions into the cells of the body’s blood factory. He’s also working with researchers who are ready to test on monkeys whether immune cells called T cells can be engineered to go on a seek-and-destroy mission after HIV and cure that infection, once and for all.

What all this means is that the fatty particles of messenger RNA may become a way to edit genomes at massive scales, and on the cheap. A drip drug that allows engineering of the blood system could become a public health boon as significant as vaccines. The burden of sickle-cell, an inherited disease that shortens lives by decades (or, in poor regions, kills during childhood), falls most heavily on Black people in equatorial Africa, Brazil, and the US. HIV has also become a lingering scourge: about two-thirds of people living with the virus, or dying from it, are in Africa.

Moderna and BioNTech have been selling their covid-19 vaccine shots for $20 to $40 a dose. What if that were the cost of genetic modification, too? “We could correct sickle-cell with a single shot,” Weissman says. “We think that is groundbreaking new therapy.”

There are fantastic fortunes to be made in mRNA technology. At least five people connected to Moderna and BioNTech are now billionaires, including Bancel. Weissman is not one of them, though he stands to get patent royalties. He says he prefers academia, where people are less likely to tell him what to research—or, just as important, what not to. He’s always looking for the next great scientific challenge: “It’s not that the vaccine is old news, but it was obvious they were going to work.” Messenger RNA, he says, “has an incredible future.”

https://bit.ly/3mzjlIa





четверг, 22 октября 2020 г.

Science breakthrough: ‘Uncrushable’ beetle discovery might create ‘invincible supplies’

 



By
 currentlyover

A study of the diabolical ironclad beetle’s almost indestructible shell could be an engineering breakthrough

The diabolical ironclad beetle is, as its name suggests, one tough insect. Clad in super-tough body armour, the beetle can survive the heaviest of forces – as much as being run over by a car. In all, it can withstand forces of up to 39,000 times its own weight.

Scientists are now investigating what exactly allows the diabolical ironclad to be such a force of nature.

It is hoped that their findings will enable engineers to transfer these qualities to future projects.

The new research is published in the prestigious journal Nature.

Study leader Professor David Kisailus of the University of California, Irvine, says the research could lead to never before found “tough, impact and crush-resistant materials”.

The diabolical ironclad beetle (Phloeodes diabolicus) is found mainly in the US and Mexico.

It lives in near obscurity under the bark of trees or beneath rocks.

Despite tremendous efforts, the pins bent and snapped.

They had to resort to drilling through the beetle’s outer shell in order to penetrate the casting.

It is believed that one of the main reasons why the beetle’s body is so tough is because it has lost its ability to fly.

Thus, the insect has evolved crush-resistant forewings (known as elytra), to survive being pecked to death by hungry birds.

Using microscopy, spectroscopy and mechanical testing, the researchers identified a series of interlocked jigsaw-shaped joints within the exoskeleton.

It was found that the beetle is able to withstand forces of up to 149 Newtons – approximately 39,000 times the creature’s body weight.

Scientists then went on to test the ways in which this strength could be imitated in materials.

They made a series of joints from metal and composites based on those seen in the beetle.

They say their designs enhanced the strength and toughness of the materials.

Bones, teeth and shells, as well as other natural materials have long served as inspiration for scientists seeking to develop new materials.

Recently, separate studies which looked into the force with which the mantis shrimp could use in its club-like forearms were conducted also at the University of California.

Researchers there hoped to use the genetic makeup of the ancient crustaceans in order to create engineering materials in the automotive, aerospace and sports industries.

Countless other natural-world materials have exceptional mechanical performance, as well as strength, toughness and the ability to self-heal.



вторник, 27 декабря 2016 г.

Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible

mpaired muscle repair in mice, left, compared with improved muscle regeneration seen after reprogramming. CreditThe Salk Institute for Biological Studies


By 



At the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., scientists are trying to get time to run backward.
Biological time, that is. In the first attempt to reverse aging by reprogramming the genome, they have rejuvenated the organs of mice and lengthened their life spans by 30 percent. The technique, which requires genetic engineering, cannot be applied directly to people, but the achievement points toward better understanding of human aging and the possibility of rejuvenating human tissues by other means.
The Salk team’s discovery, reported in the Thursday issue of the journal Cell, is “novel and exciting,” said Jan Vijg, an expert on aging at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
Leonard Guarente, who studies the biology of aging at M.I.T., said, “This is huge,” citing the novelty of the finding and the opportunity it creates to slow down, if not reverse, aging. “It’s a pretty remarkable finding, and if it holds up it could be quite important in the history of aging research,” Dr. Guarente said.
The finding is based on the heterodox idea that aging is not irreversible and that an animal’s biological clock can in principle be wound back to a more youthful state.
Continue reading the main story
The aging process is clocklike in the sense that a steady accumulation of changes eventually degrades the efficiency of the body’s cells. In one of the deepest mysteries of biology, the clock’s hands are always set back to zero at conception: However old the parents and their reproductive cells, a fertilized egg is free of all marks of age.
Ten years ago, the Japanese biologist Shinya Yamanaka amazed researchers by identifying four critical genes that reset the clock of the fertilized egg. The four genes are so powerful that they will reprogram even the genome of skin or intestinal cells back to the embryonic state. Dr. Yamanaka’s method is now routinely used to change adult tissue cells into cells very similar to the embryonic stem cells produced in the first few divisions of a fertilized egg.
Scientists next began to wonder if the four Yamanaka genes could be applied not just to cells in glassware but to a whole animal. The results were disastrous. As two groups of researchers reported in 2013 and 2014, the animals all died, some because their adult tissue cells had lost their identity and others from cancer. Embryonic cells are primed for rapid growth, which easily becomes uncontrolled.
But at the Salk Institute, Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte had been contemplating a different approach. He has long been interested in regeneration, the phenomenon in which certain animals, like lizards and fish, can regenerate lost tails or limbs. The cells near the lost appendage revert to a stage midway between an embryonic cell, which is open to all fates, and an adult cell, which is committed to being a particular type of cell, before rebuilding the missing limb.
This partial reprogramming suggested to him that reprogramming is a stepwise process, and that a small dose of the Yamanaka factors might rejuvenate cells without the total reprogramming that converts cells to the embryonic state.
With Alejandro Ocampo and other Salk researchers, Dr. Izpisua Belmonte has spent five years devising ways to deliver a nonlethal dose of Yamanaka factors to mice. The solution his team developed was to genetically engineer mice with extra copies of the four Yamanaka genes, and to have the genes activated only when the mice received a certain drug in their drinking water, applied just two days a week.
The Salk team worked first with mice that age prematurely, so as to get quick results. “What we saw is that the animal has fewer signs of aging, healthier organs, and at the end of the experiment we could see they had lived 30 percent longer than control mice,” Dr. Izpisua Belmonte said.
Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., has long been interested in regeneration, the phenomenon in which certain animals, like lizards and fish, can regenerate lost tails or limbs.CreditConcepcion Rodriguez Esteban/The Salk Institute for Biological Studies




The team also saw improved organ health in normal mice but, because the mice are still living, could not yet say if longevity was extended.
Dr. Izpisua Belmonte believes these beneficial effects have been obtained by resetting the clock of the aging process. The clock is created by the epigenome, the system of proteins that clads the cell’s DNA and controls which genes are active and which are suppressed.
When an egg develops into a whole animal, the epigenome plays a critical role by letting a heart cell, say, activate just the genes specific to its role but switching off all the genes used by other types of cells. This process lets the embryo’s cells differentiate into all the various types of cells required by the adult body.
The epigenome is also involved throughout life in maintaining each cell and letting it switch genes on and off as required for its housekeeping duties. The epigenome itself is controlled by agents that add or subtract chemical groups, known as marks, to its proteins.
Only in the last few years have biologists come to realize that the state of the epigenome may be a major cause of aging. If the epigenome is damaged, perhaps by accumulating too many marks, the cell’s efficiency is degraded.
Dr. Izpisua Belmonte sees the epigenome as being like a manuscript that is continually edited. “At the end of life there are many marks and it is difficult for the cell to read them,” he said.
What the Yamanaka genes are doing in his mice, he believes, is eliminating the extra marks, thus reverting the cell to a more youthful state.
The Salk biologists “do indeed provide what I believe to be the first evidence that partial reprogramming of the genome ameliorated symptoms of tissue degeneration and improved regenerative capacity,” Dr. Vijg said.
But he cautioned the fast-aging mice used in the study might not be fully representative of ordinary aging.
Dr. Guarente said it was more likely that the Yamanaka genes were not erasing the epigenomic marks directly, but rather were activating the genes which are responsible for the immense health and vitality of embryonic cells. This gene activation is a natural function of the Yamanaka factors. It is these embryonic pro-health genes that are rejuvenating the tissues in the mice, Dr. Guarente suggested, and causing changes in the epigenome through their activity.
Thomas A. Rando, an expert on stem cells and aging at Stanford, said that it should be possible in theory to uncouple the differentiation program and the aging process, and that “if that’s what’s happening, this is the first demonstration of that.”
Dr. Izpisua Belmonte said he was testing drugs to see if he could achieve the same rejuvenation as with the Yamanaka factors. The use of chemicals “will be more translatable to human therapies and clinical applications,” he said.

понедельник, 22 февраля 2016 г.

Building a Full-Blown Human Body-on-a-Chip

organ-chip\
A human lung-on-a-chip.
Harvard's Wyss Institute

Scientists have long experimented with organs-on-chips: tiny representations of human organs, such as lungs, hearts and intestines, made from cells embedded on plastic about the size of a computer memory stick. Channels lined by living vascular cells then mimic the body’s circulatory system. But our bodies are complex systems of organs, so testing drugs on individual miniature organs only goes so far. Researchers now are aiming for something more: full-blown human bodies-on-chips.
interrogator
Harvard’s Don Ingber wants to use the Interrogator to combine at least 10 organ chips into one system. The more organs they can combine, the closer they’ll be to a real human body.
Harvard’s Wyss Institute
The kick-start came from the U.S. Department of Defense, which wanted a quick and effective way to develop and test drugs and vaccines against biological and chemical weapons. So federal agencies funded various projects to develop chips representing all the major organ systems. Each organ-on-a-chip hosts real human tissue kept alive by a synthetic circulatory system. Join enough of them together, and you’ve got a high-tech stand-in for the human body.
Researchers at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have 12 different organ chips in development, representing everything from lungs to skin. They’re working to combine 10 of them that will operate as a system for at least four weeks in an instrument called the Interrogator (named after its ability to analyze, or interrogate, how they work together). Don Ingber, the institute’s director, says he and his colleagues already have succeeded in coupling two different pairs of chips — lung-liver and lung-heart — a key step toward the ultimate goal.
“These platforms are designed to be as close to human as you can get, but enable experimental manipulation,” says D. Lansing Taylor, director of the University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute. Taylor is growing miniature livers that will be used to help re-create the body’s main system for drug absorption and metabolism.
Human bodies-on-chips would have applications far beyond drug development. For instance, toxicologist Thomas Hartung of Johns Hopkins hopes that connecting his minibrains to other micro-organs will show how toxins affect neural development and how they’re processed in the body. Conducting such brain experiments on animals is expensive and time consuming — and on people, it’s impossible.
Enter the human bodies-on-chips.

livers
Nortis

Liver

Minilivers from Pittsburgh’s D. Lansing Taylor mimic a liver’s cell-generation and detoxification abilities. They’ll be part of a three-organoid connection that will link up minilivers, minikidneys and mini-intestines to re-create the body’s main system for processing drugs.
brain
Thomas Hartung and David Pamies/Johns Hopkins University

The Brain

Thomas Hartung of Johns Hopkins is growing miniature brains that contain the same kinds of cells (left) found in full-size brains. Hartung hopes to build a brain-on-a-chip that can eventually plug into the Interrogator. 


Lung

The lung-on-a-chip was the first human organ to be scaled down to chip form. Ingber’s design, which should work with the Interrogator, re-creates the lung’s processes with living cells.
kidney
Nortis

Kidney

Taylor’s minilivers also should combine with these miniature kidneys-on-chips, developed by scientists at the University of Washington. 
intestines
Olga Kovbasnjuk

Intestines

Fellow Johns Hopkins researcher Mark Donowitz, meanwhile,is working on the third part of the system, re-creating the functions of intestine cells (above). Researchers aim to combine every major organ system to create a true human body-on-a-chip stand-in. 



Bone Marrow

Bone marrow-on-a-chip can successfully manufacture blood cells. 

пятница, 1 мая 2015 г.

Human gene editing has arrived – here's why it matters





Taking aim at faulty DNA (Image: Power and Syred/Science Photo Library)

It's becoming possible to edit our genes to treat and prevent conditions like HIV and sickle cell disease or, more controversially, create designer babies
GENE editing is here. The first work attempting to edit human embryos grabbed headlines last week. And another study showed how gene editing might prevent children inheriting disease.
It could be decades before it is safe to snip out and replace stretches of DNA to genetically engineer babies – even if it is deemed ethically acceptable. But the approach is already being tested for treating disease in adults and could soon be used to treat a wide range of disorders.
It has been a long time coming. Rudimentary editing methods were first developed some 30 years ago, but only now have techniques been honed to the point that they can be used for treating people. It raises the curtain on a new era of genomic tinkering and genetic medicine.

HIV therapy

In the coming months, four US clinics will recruit people with HIV to a trial of a therapy based on gene editing. HIV wreaks havoc by destroying immune cells called T-cells. It does this by exploiting a receptor, CCR5, on the surface of these cells. Destroy the gene for CCR5 and you can block infection.
Last year, researchers targeted and destroyed this gene in the T-cells of 12 people with HIV using custom-made proteins called zinc finger nucleases. This raised their resistance to the virus. The new trial goes further, knocking out the gene in the stem cells that give rise to T-cells, making it a possible one-shot, lasting treatment. "The goal is a functional cure," says John Zaia, of the City of Hope hospital in Duarte, California.
The trial blazes a path for using the approach to treat other diseases. For example, another trial set to start soon will focus on sickle cell disease, in which the oxygen-carrying haemoglobin molecules in red blood cells are abnormal. The technique would switch on a protein that can be used instead of the haemoglobin.
There could be downsides to this approach though. "Genome editing offers both tremendous promise and significant potential risk," says David Liu of Harvard University. Almost all editing techniques have the potential to modify unintended DNA sequences, he says. "Some of these off-target genome modification events will likely lead to negative biological consequences."
But, if it can be made safe, editing adult stem cells is likely to face fewer ethical hurdles than other applications of gene editing.

Inherited change

Some teams are already exploring the possibility of using gene editing to make heritable changes. Last week, researchers showed that gene editing can weed out mutations in the mitochondria that a female mouse passes on to her offspring.
Mitochondria generate energy in our cells and have their own set of DNA, which differs from that in the cell nucleus. Mutations in mitochondria can cause diseases for which there are no treatments.
Earlier this year, the UK gave the green light to mitochondrial replacement therapy. This involves creating "three-parent babies" with healthy mitochondria donated from a third person preventing such diseases being passed on.
The new approach offers an alternative. It uses a gene-editing technique based on custom-made proteins called TALENs. These proteins can be designed to latch on to the DNA in faulty mitochondria and target them for destruction. Healthy mitochondria remain unharmed.
Most women at risk of passing on faulty mitochondria carry some healthy and some mutated mitochondria, so TALENs could lower the number of mutated mitochondria in their eggs. Harmful effects only kick in once the number of mutated mitochondria crosses a threshold, so this may be enough to prevent disease in their child, and perhaps in future generations too.
Using gene editing in this way isn't without risk, says Robert Lightowlers at Newcastle University, UK. It is unclear whether reducing the number of mitochondria could have a long-term effect, he says. And although the TALENs protein in the study seemed to target only the intended mitochondria, it could be harmful if even a very low amount of it got into the nucleus and altered DNA there.
Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, who is part of the team doing the TALENs work, says they plan to begin testing the safety of the technique. "The idea will be to obtain oocytes and discarded embryos from IVF treatments in order to test this technology using human samples."
Taking the research to the next level will be controversial. Last month, a group of scientists called for a moratorium on gene editing research in cells that can form embryos. The plea was made by those working on gene editing with adult cells who are concerned that embryo editing could have unpredictable effects on future generations and stimulate a public outcry.

Uncharted waters

Despite the call for a hiatus, a team in China announced last week that it hadedited DNA in the nucleus of human embryos.

The work involves a technique called CRISPR/Cas9, developed in the last few years. It has the potential to accelerate progress enormously because CRISPR is much faster than conventional gene editing methods (see "How to edit genes").
Despite the hype, there is a long way to go before CRISPR could be used to write genetic disease out of the DNA of future generations. The Chinese study flagged up a number of potential problems. Of the 86 eggs injected, just four were successfully modified. And the resulting embryos were a mosaic of modified and unmodified cells.
This may have been down to the unviable embryos used, which were created when two sperm fertilised the same egg. The team said it used them because ethical concerns preclude the study of gene editing in normal embryos. But that hasn't stopped the work being criticised.
The fuss is because it is the first phase of a more controversial effort to make genomic changes in human embryos intended to be implanted, says George Annas of Boston University. "It is only in the context of this wider project that manipulation of non-viable human embryos moves from curiosity to potentially dangerous – both to the resulting children and their children, and to society at large," says Annas. These concerns over designer babies are less of an issue for mitochondrial gene editing because it is only possible to delete mutant mitochondria, not alter them.
Yuet Kan of the University of California, San Francisco, describes the study as a publicity gimmick. The disease it targeted, beta-thalassaemia, can already be detected by pre-implantation embryonic screening during IVF. "I don't see any need for embryo gene editing," says Kan, who is using CRISPR to treat HIV.
Despite the controversy, at least one group in the US and several more in China are also reportedly working with human embryos. But when it comes to treating disease in the near future, it is the adult methods that hold the most immediate promise. One thing is for sure, the gene-editing genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

How to edit genes


Target a specific sequence
For the TALENs or zinc finger gene editing systems (see main story), this requires designing proteins to bind to the DNA you want to edit.
With CRISPR, only RNA complementary to the target DNA is needed. It takes days to make these, but customised proteins take years.
Cut the target DNA
This is the easy part – enzymes cut your chosen DNA.
Hijack DNA repair systems
Cells repair any strands of cut DNA using the nearest matching DNA as a template. So if you supply the template DNA, you can trick cells into making the changes you want.

Current state of play


Treating disease by modifying genes in adults
Human trials under way
Pros: Could be used to treat all kinds of diseases and disorders
Cons: Could turn cells cancerous if the wrong bit of DNA gets modified
Preventing disease by destroying mutant mitochondria
Testing in human cells about to start
Pros: Could prevent mitochondrial diseases without using a donor
Cons: Effects are heritable, so ethically controversial
Preventing disease by modifying genes in embryos
Testing in human embryos under way
Pros: Could prevent many genetic disorders
Cons: Uncharted ethical and scientific waters; treatments are a long way off
https://bit.ly/3Nd5a85