Immunotherapy: Using Your Own Cells to Fight Cancer – Part 2

 

By Gesa Junge, PhD

 

Part 1 of this post described passive immunotherapies like antibodies and cytokines, but there are also active immunotherapies, which re-target our immune system towards cancer cells, for example cancer vaccines. These can be preventative vaccines, offering protection against cancer-associated viruses such as Hepatitis B (liver cancer) or Human Papilloma Virus (HPV, cervical cancer). The link between HPV and cervical cancer was first described in 1983, and a vaccine was approved in 2006. By 2015, the incidence of HPV infections in women under 20 had decreased as much as 60% in countries that had 50% vaccination coverage, although it may still be too early to tell what the impact on HPV-associated cancer incidence is. There are also other factors to consider, for example screening programmes are also likely to have a positive impact on HPV-associated cancers.

Vaccines can also be therapeutic vaccines, which stimulate the immune system to attack cancer cells. To date, the only cancer vaccine approved in the US is Provenge, used for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. For this therapy, a patient’s white blood cells are extracted from the blood, incubated with prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP, a prostate-specific enzyme) and granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in order to produce mature antigen presenting cells which are then returned to the patient and search and destroy tumour cells.

Many other therapeutic cancer vaccines are in development, for example OncoVax, which is an autologous vaccine made from a patient’s resected tumour cells. OncoVax has been in development since the 1990s and is currently in phase III trials. Another example is GVAX, an allogenic whole-cell tumour vaccine currently being studied in phase I and II trials or pancreatic and colorectal cancer. As an allogenic vaccine, it is not made from the patient’s own blood cells (like an autologous vaccine), and it does not target specific antigens but rather increases the production of cytokines and GM-CSF.

Another therapy which is based on re-programming the patient’s immune system is adoptive T-cell transfer. As with some cancer vaccines, a patient’s T-cells are isolated from the blood, and the cells with the greatest affinity for tumour cells are expanded in the lab and the re-infused in the patient. A recent modification of this technique is the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells, where the T-cell receptors are genetically engineered to be more tumour-specific before re-infusion. This approached was especially promising in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, where some patients experienced remissions of a year and longer. Later, CAR T-cells were also tested in acute lymphocytic leukaemia, where response rates were as high as 89%.

Finally, a new class of cancer drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors has been making headlines recently, some of which are now approved for the treatment of cancer. Immune checkpoints are part of the mechanism by which human cells, including cancer cells, can evade the immune system. For example, the programmed cell death (PD) 1 receptor on immune cells interacts with PD1 ligand (PDL1) on cancer cells, which inhibits the killing of the cancer cell by the immune cell. Similarly, CTLA-4 is a receptor on activated T-cells which downregulates the immune response.

The first checkpoint inhibitor was an antibody to CTLA-4, ipilimumab, which was approved for the treatment of melanoma in 2011. PD1 antibodies such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab were only approved in 2014, and the only PDL1 antibody (atezolizumab) in 2016, so it is difficult to tell what the long-term effects of checkpoint inhibitor treatment will be. Numerous checkpoint inhibitors are still undergoing trials, most of the advanced (phase III) ones being targeted to PD1 or PDL1. However, there are other compounds in early trials (phase I or II) that target KIR (killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptor) which are primarily being studied in myeloma, or LAG3 (lymphocyte activation gene 3), in trials for various solid tumours and leukaemias.

Immunotherapies all come under the umbrella of biological therapies. Biologics are produced by organisms, usually cells in a dish, unlike synthetic drugs, which are manufactured using a chemical process in the lab. This makes biologicals more expensive to manufacture. Ipilimumab therapy, for example, can cost about $100 000 per patient, with pembrolizumab and nivolumab being only slightly less expensive at $48 000 – $67 000. This puts considerable financial strain on patients and insurance companies. From a safety perspective, biologicals can cause the immune system to overreact. This sounds odd, as the whole point of immunotherapy is to activate the immune system in order to fight tumour cells, but if this response gets out of control, it can lead to potentially serious side effects as the immune system attacks the body’s organs and tissues.

All of these therapeutic approaches (antibodies, interleukins, vaccines, and checkpoint inhibitors) are usually not used alone but in combination with each other or other chemotherapy, which makes it difficult to definitively say which drug works best. But it is safe to say that collectively they have improved the lives of a lot of cancer patients. If you are interested in finding out more about the fascinating history of immunotherapy, from the discovery of the immune system to checkpoint inhibitors, check out the CRI’s timeline of progress on immunology and immunotherapy here.

 

Immunotherapy: Using Your Own Cells to Fight Cancer – Part 1

 

By Gesa Junge, PhD

 

Our immune system’s job is to recognize foreign, unfamiliar and potentially dangerous cells and molecules. On the one hand, it helps us fight infections by bacteria and viruses, while on the other hand it can leave us with annoying and potentially dangerous allergic reactions to harmless things like peanuts, pollen or pets. Tumor cells are arguably very harmful to our health, and yet the immune system does not always eliminate them. This is partially because cancer cells are our own cells, and not a foreign, unfamiliar intruder.

The immune system can recognize cancer cells; this was first postulated in 1909 by Paul Ehrlich and subsequently found by several others. However, detecting cancer cells may not be enough to prevent tumor growth. Recent research has shown that while detection can lead to elimination of cancer cells, some cells are not killed but enter an equilibrium stage, where they can exist undisturbed and undergo changes, and finally the cells can escape, if they have changed in a way that allows them to grow undetected by the immune system. This process of elimination, equilibrium and escape is referred to as “cancer immunoediting” and is one of the most active research areas in cancer, particularly in regard to cancer therapy.

Immunotherapy is a form of cancer therapy that harnesses our immune system to kill cancer cells, and there are various approaches to this. Probably the most established forms of immunotherapy are antibodies, which have been used for almost two decades. They generally target surface markers of cancer cells; for example, rituximab is an antibody to CD20, or trastuzumab, which targets HER2. CD20 and HER2 are cell surface proteins highly expressed by leukaemia and breast cancer cells, respectively, while normal, healthy cells have lower expression, making the cancer cells more susceptible. Rituximab was approved for Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma in 1997, the first of now nearly 20 antibodies to be routinely used in cancer therapy. In addition to this, there are several new antibodies undergoing clinical trials for most cancers. These are mainly antibodies to tumour-specific antigens (proteins that may only be expressed by e.g. prostate or lung cancer), and checkpoint inhibitors such as PD1 (more on that in part 2).

Initially, antibodies were usually generated in mice; however, giving murine antibodies to humans can lead to an immune response and resistance to the mouse antibodies when they are administered again later. Therefore, antibodies had to be “humanised”, i.e. made more like human antibodies, without losing the target affinity, and this was only made possible by advances in biotechnology. The first clinically used antibodies, such as rituximab, were chimeric antibodies, in which the variable region (which binds the target) is murine and the constant region is human, making them much better tolerated. Trastuzumab is an example of a humanised antibody, where only the very end of the variable region (the complementarity-determining region, CDR) is murine, and the rest of the molecule is human). And then there are fully human antibodies, such as panitumumab, an anti-EGFR antibody used to treat colorectal cancer. There is actually a system to labeling therapeutic antibodies: -ximab is chimeric, -zumab is humanised and –umab is human.

Antibodies can also be conjugated to drugs, which should make the drug more selective to its target and the antibody more effective in cell-killing. So far there are only very few antibody-drug conjugates in clinical use, but one example is Kadcyla, which consists of trastuzumab conjugated to emtansine, a cytotoxic agent.

Other examples of immunotherapy are cytokines such as interferons and interleukins. These are mediators of the immune response secreted by immune cells which can be given intravenously to help attack cancer cells, and they are used for example in the treatment of skin cancer. Interleukin 2 (IL-2) was the first interleukin to be approved, for the treatment of advanced melanoma and renal cancer, and research into new interleukins and their therapeutic potential is still going strong. Especially IL-2 and IL-12, but also several others are currently in clinical studies for both and various other indications, such as viral infections and autoimmune diseases.

In addition to passive immunotherapies like antibodies and cytokines, there are also active immunotherapies which re-target our immune system towards cancer cells, for example cancer vaccines. More on this, and on new drugs and their issues in part 2.

 

 

 

AIDS Attack: Priming an Immune Response to Conquer HIV

By Esther Cooke, PhD

Infection with HIV remains a prominent pandemic. Last year, an estimated 36.7 million people worldwide were living with HIV, two million of which were newly infected. The HIV pandemic most stringently affects low- and middle-income countries, yet doctors in Saskatchewan, Canada are calling, in September 2016, for a state of emergency over rising HIV rates.

Since the mid-20th century, we have seen vaccination regimes harness the spread of gnarly diseases such as measles, polio, tetanus, and small pox, to name but a few. But why is there still no HIV vaccine?

When a pathogen invades a host, the immune system responds by producing antibodies that recognise and bind to a unique set of proteins on the pathogen’s surface, or “envelope”. In this way, the pathogen loses its function and is engulfed by defence cells known as macrophages. Memory B cells, a type of white blood cell, play a pivotal role in mounting a rapid attack upon re-exposure to the infectious agent. The entire process is known as adaptive immunity – a phenomenon which is exploited for vaccine development.

The cornerstone of adaptive immunity is specificity, which can also become its downfall in the face of individualistic intruders, such as HIV. HIV is an evasive target owing to its mutability and highly variable envelope patterns. Memory B cells fail to remember the distinctive, yet equally smug, faces of the HIV particles. This lack of recognition hampers a targeted attack, allowing HIV to nonchalantly dodge bullet after bullet, and maliciously nestle into its host.

For HIV and other diverse viruses, such as influenza, a successful vaccination strategy must elicit a broad immune response. This is no mean feat, but researchers at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI), La Jolla and their collaborators are getting close.

The team have dubbed their approach to HIV vaccine design a “reductionist” strategy. Central to this strategy are broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAb), which feature extensive mutations and can combat a wide range of virus strains and subtypes. These antibodies slowly emerge in a small proportion of HIV-infected individuals. The goal is to steer the immune system in a logical fashion, using sequential “booster” vaccinations to build a repertoire of effective bnAbs.

Having already mapped the best antibody mutations for binding to HIV, Professor Dennis Burton and colleagues at TSRI, as well as collaborators at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, set out to prime precursor B cells to produce the desired bnAbs. They did this using an immunogen – a foreign entity capable of inducing an immune response – that targets human germline B cells. The results were published September 8, 2016 in the journal Science.

“To evaluate complex immunogens and immunization strategies, we need iteration – that is, a good deal of trial and error. This is not possible in humans, it would take too long,” says Burton. “One answer is to use mice with human antibody systems.”

The immunogen, donated by Professor William Schief of TSRI, was previously tested in transgenic mice with an elevated frequency of bnAb precursor cells. Germline-targeting was easier than would be the case in humans. In their most recent study, the Burton lab experimented in mice with a genetically humanised immune system, developed by Kymab of Cambridge, UK. This proved hugely advantageous, enabling them to study the activation of human B cells in a more robust mouse model. Burton speaks of their success:

“It worked! We could show that the so-called germline-activating immunogen triggered the right sort of antibody response, even though the cells making that kind of response were rare in the mice.”

The precursor B cells represented less than one in 60 million of total B cells in the Kymab mice, yet almost one third of mice exposed to the immunogen produced the desired activation response. This indicates a remarkably high targeting efficiency, and provides incentive to evaluate the technique in humans. Importantly, even better immunisation outcomes are anticipated in humans due to a higher precursor cell frequency. Burton adds that clinical trials of precursor activation will most likely begin late next year. If successful, development of the so-called reductionist vaccination strategy could one day spell serious trouble for HIV, and other tricky targets alike.

RESIDENT LYMPHOCYTES KEEP A LOOKOUT FOR NASCENT CANCER CELLS

 

By Sophie Balmer, PhD

One of the first questions that comes to my mind when discussing the emergence of cancer cells is how my immune system recognizes that my own cells have been transformed? This process is commonly termed cancer immunosurveillance. In the prevalent model, the adaptive immune system composed of lymphocytes circulating in the blood stream plays the main function. However, recent findings describe specific immune cells already present within the tissue, a.k.a. tissue-resident lymphocytes, and how they trigger the first immune response against cancer cells, allowing a much faster reaction in an attempt to eradicate transformed cells.

 

The cancer immunosurveillance concept hypothesizes that sentinel thymus-derived immune cells constantly survey tissues for the presence of nascent transformed cells. Cancer immunosurveillance was first suggested in the early 1900’s by Dr. Erlich but it took another fifty years for Dr. Thomas and Dr. Burnet to revisit this model and speculate about the presence of transformed cells induced inflammation and antigen-specific lymphocyte responses. Additionally, Dr. Prehn and Dr. Main estimated that chemically-induced tumor triggered the synthesis of antigen at the surface of cancerous cells that could be recognized by the immune system. Countless studies arose from these hypotheses and either validated or disproved these models. The latest attempt was published a little over a month ago, in a paper by Dr. Dadi and colleagues, describing a new mechanism for the immune system to respond to nascent cancer lesions by activating specific resident lymphocytes.

 

In this study, the authors used a genetically-induced tumor model (the MMTV-PyMT spontaneous mammary cancer mouse model) to analyze the in vivo response of the immune system to nascent transformed cells. Most studies have been performed using chemically-induced tumors or tumor transplantation into a healthy host but these do not account for the initial environment of the nascent tumor. The spontaneous model the authors use rapidly exhibits developing cancer lesion (in 8-week old mice), allowing the analysis of cellular populations present near transformed cells.

 

To analyze which immune cell types are present near cancer lesions, the authors performed several analyses. First, they measure the levels of granzyme B, a serine protease found in granules synthesized by cytotoxic lymphocytes to generate apoptosis of targeted cells, and show that PyMT mice have elevated levels of granzyme B when compared to wild-type mouse. Moreover, similar analysis of PyMT secondary lymphoid organs show that this response was restricted to the transformed tissue.

During the first steps of immune responses, conventional natural killer (cNK) cells as well as innate lymphoid cells (ILC) are found in tumor microenvironments. In this model however, sorting of cells located in the vicinity of the lesion identified unconventional populations of immune cells, derived from innate, TCRab and TCRgd lineages. Indeed, their RNA-seq profiling reveal a specific gene signature characterized by high expression of the NK receptor NK1.1 but also the integrins CD49a and CD103. As these newly identified cells share part of their transcriptome with type 1 ILCs, the authors named them type 1-like ILCs (ILC1ls) and type 1 innate-like T cells (ILTC1s). In addition, transcripts encoding several immune effectors as well as apoptosis-inducing factors are upregulated in these cells, likely indicating that they trigger several pathways to eliminate transformed cells.

The authors also suggest that cNK cells are not required for immunosurveillance in this model and the unconventional lymphocytes described in this paper are regulated by the interleukine-15 (IL-15) in a dose-dependent way. Mice overexpressing IL-15 exhibit higher proliferation of these resident lymphocytes and tumor regression. Secretion of IL-15 in the tumor microenvironment might therefore promote cancer immunosurveillance.

 

In contradiction with the conventional view that recirculating populations of immune cells survey tissues for cellular transformation, ILC1ls and ILTC1s are tissue-resident lymphocytes. Their gene signature indicates that transcripts encoding motility-related genes are downregulated in these cells. Moreover, parabiosis experiments, during which two congenically marked mice are surgically united and share their blood stream, are performed to determine whether they are resident or circulating cells. The amounts of non-host ILC1s and ILTC1s are much reduced when compared to other recirculating immune cell type demonstrating that these cells are tissue-resident lymphocytes. Single-cell killing assays also determine that ILC1ls and ILTC1s are highly efficient at inducing apoptosis of tumor cells, which is more likely dependent on the lytic granules pathway.

 

Although the cancer immunosurveillance concept has been around for decades, it is still highly debated. Overall, these results shed light on this confusing field and bring up several questions. The signals recognized by this immune response are still unknown. Although the authors suggest that IL-15 might regulate the proliferation and/or activation of these cells, the source of IL-15 remains to be found. In addition, these cells might promote cancer immunosurveillance but are not sufficient to eradicate tumor cells and determining the cascade of signals induced by these resident lymphocytes will be required to ascertain their role. Establishing the limit of their efficiency as well as the mechanisms activated by transformed cell to escape their surveillance will also be crucial. Finally, one of the most important question to consider is how one could manipulate the activity of tissue-resident lymphocytes in cancer immunotherapy.

How Can You Make Money and Help Others with Your Shit?

And other very important poop updates.

 

By Jesica Levingston Mac leod, PhD

First, you have to be a healthy pooper… Second, you have to live in the Boston area. Your stool can help a person suffering from recurrent C. difficile infections, which is a bacterium that affects 500,000 Americans every year.  Where antibiotic treatment has failed to help, a new treatment called “fecal microbiota transplantation” has shown a cure rate of 90%.  In this procedure, a fecal microbiota preparation using stool from a healthy donor is transplanted into the colon of the patient.  OpenBiome, the startup company based in Boston, helps facilitate this procedure by screening and processing fecal microbiota preparations for use in this treatment. After joining the registration you and your stool will be screened and if you are healthy and a good candidate you will became a donor. If you can succeed with all the tests and you can provide “supplies” quite often then you can exchange money for you poo.

Lately, the study of the human microbiota has been all over the news, specially related with weight control, pregnancy and the infant’s diet. In fact, it’s estimated that the human gut contains 100 trillion bacteria, or 10 times as many bacteria as cells in the human body. Yes, I know what you are thinking: “More of them that my own cells, that cannot be right, right?”

These bacteria, or microbiota, influence your health in many ways, from helping to extract energy from food to building the body’s immune system, to protecting against infection with harmful, disease-causing bacteria.

Researchers are only just beginning to understand how differences in the composition of gut bacteria may influence human health. From what we know so far, here are five ways gut flora can affect your wellness:

 

Weight Changes

Yes, your gut bacteria affect your eating disorders (or orders if you are lucky). For example the diversity of gut bacteria is higher in lean people compared to obese people. Also, some specific bacteria groups, the Firmicutes and the Bacteroidetes, are linked with obesity. The famous study were they transplanted gut bacteria from obese and lean people to mice, making the host of the first kind of poo gain more weigh that the mice who received the “lean fecal bacteria”, was a shocking confirmation of the importance of the gut bacteria in the body weight regulation. They discovered that the gut bacteria from obese people increase the production of some amino acids, while the material from lean people increases the metabolism of “burning” carbohydrates.

 

Preterm Labor

Realman and col. found that pregnant women with lower levels of bacteria Lactobacillus in their vagina had an increased risk of preterm labor, compared with women whose vaginal bacterial communities were rich in Lactobacillus. Apparently, the absence of Lactobacillus allows the grown of other species that would have different effects in the pregnancy.

 

Crying Babies

In a funny study on how diet may affect babies, Pertty and col. showed that giving probiotics to your baby does not change the daily crying time, around 173 minutes, compare to the placebo group (174 min), according to the parental diary. They enrolled 30 infants with colic during the first 6 weeks of life.  However, parents reported a decrease of 68% in daily crying in the probiotic and 49% in the placebo group.

 

Heart Attacks

Gut Bacteria produce compounds can even affect your heart. One of these compounds is the trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO), and the presence of it in the blood of the subjects of a recent research study, increased 2.5 times the probability of having a heart attack, stroke or to die over a three-year period compared with people with low levels of TMAO. They have also shown that the metabolism of the gut bacteria changes according of the host’s (your) diet. For example, the consumption of high cholesterol and fatty food can increase the bacterial production of TMAO.

 

The Immune System

A recent review published in Cell rang the alarm about the negative effect of the “rich countries” diet in the microbiota influencing the immune system. In ideal and normal conditions the immune system-microbiota association allows the induction of protective responses to pathogens and the maintenance of regulatory pathways involved in the maintenance of tolerance to innocuous antigens. In rich countries, overuse of antibiotics, changes in diet, and elimination of constitutive partners, such as nematodes, may have selected for a microbiota that lack the resilience and diversity required to establish balanced immune responses. This phenomenon is proposed to account for some of the dramatic rise in autoimmune and inflammatory disorders in parts of the world where our symbiotic relationship with the microbiota has been the most affected.

 

Lungs and Asthma

The gut bacteria can affect your lungs: The low levels of 4 gut bacteria strains (FaecalibacteriumLachnospiraVeillonella, and Rothia) in kids was been recently related to an increase in the risk for developing debilitating asthma. The introduction of these 4 bacteria in mice induced to suffered asthma shown protection as the mice’s lungs did not present inflammation.

The question is: how bacteria IN the guts can affect your other tissues and organs? One study that was just published shows  that these bacteria produce chemicals that may help the immune system to battle against other germs. Without this training, the immune system could fail and create inflammation in the lungs. As a follow up from the latest research it may be possible in the near future to predict asthma, and other diseases, as well as cure some illnesses with gut bacteria.

Be ready to give a shit about your shit.

Extra Protection: New HPV Vaccine Extends Protection to Nine Strains of The Virus

 

By Asu Erden

The human papillomavirus (HPV) is responsible for 5% of all cancers. Until, 2006 there were no commercially available vaccines against the virus. That year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first preventive HPV vaccine, Gardasil (qHPV). This vaccine conveys protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 of the virus and demonstrates remarkable efficacy. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that this quadrivalent vaccine prevents 100% of genital pre-cancers and warts in previously unexposed women and 90% of genital warts and 75% of anal cancers in men. While this qHPV protects against 70% of HPV strains, there remains a number of high-risk strains such as HPV 31, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 58 for which we do not yet have prophylactic vaccines.

 

In February of this year, a study by an international team spanning five continents changed this state of affairs. The team led by Dr. Elmar A. Joura, Associate Professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the Medical University, published its study in the New England Journal of Medicine. It details a phase 2b-3 clinical study of a novel nine-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine that targets the four HPV strains included in Gardasil as well as strains 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. The 9vHPV vaccine was tested side-by-side with the qHPV vaccine in an international cohort of 14, 215 women. Each participant received three doses of either vaccine, the first on day one, the second dose two months later, and the final dose six months after the first dose. Neither groups differed in their basal health or sexual behavior. This is the immunization regimen currently implemented for the Gardasil vaccine.

 

Blood samples as well as local tissue swabs were collected for analysis of antibody responses and HPV infection, respectively. They revealed the same low percentage of high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal. Antibody responses against the four HPV strains included in the Gardasil vaccine were similar in both treatment groups. Of note is that participants in the 9vHPV vaccine group experienced more mild to moderate adverse events at the site of injection. Dr. Elmar A. Joura explained that these effects are due to the fact that the “[new] vaccine contains more antigen, hence more local reactions are expected. The amount of aluminium [editor’s note: the adjuvant used in the vaccine] was adapted to fit with the amount of antigen. It is the same amount of aluminium as used in the Hepatitis B vaccine.”

 

These results confirm that the novel 9vHPV vaccine raises antibody responses against HPV strains 6, 11, 16, 18 that are as efficacious as the original Gardasil vaccine. In addition, the novel vaccine also raises protection against HPV strains 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Importantly, the immune responses triggered by the 9vHPV vaccine are as protective against HPV disease as those raised by the qHPV vaccine.

 

Yet we are all too familiar with the contention surrounding the original qHPV vaccine. And no doubt, this new 9vHPV vaccine will reignite the debate. Those who specifically oppose the HPV vaccine question its safety and usefulness. In terms of its safety, the HPV vaccine has been tested for over a decade prior to becoming commercially available and has been proven completely safe since its introduction a decade ago. Adverse effects include muscle soreness at the site of injection, which is expected for a vaccine delivered into the muscle…

 

As for its usefulness, don’t make me drag the Surgeon General and Elmo onto the stage. The qHPV vaccine has been shown to be safe and to significantly impact HPV-related genital warts, HPV infection, and cervical complications, “as early as three years after the introduction of [the vaccine]” in terms of curtailing the transmission and public health costs of HPV infections and related cancers.   “HPV related disease and cancer is common. It pays off to get vaccinated and even more importantly to protect the children,” noted Dr Elmar A. Joura.

 

Other opponents to the HPV vaccines raise concerns regarding the use of aluminium as the adjuvant in the formulation of the vaccine. This inorganic compound is necessary to increase the immunogenicity of the vaccine and for the appropriate immune response to be raised against HPV. Common vaccines that include this adjuvant include the hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), Haemophilus influenzae type b, as well as pneumococcal vaccines.

 

The only question we face is that given the availability of Gardasil, why do we need a nine-valent vaccine? In order to achieve even greater levels of protection in the population at large, extending coverage to additional high-risk HPV strains is of central importance for public health. The team of international scientists that contributed to the study underlined that the 9vHPV vaccine “offers the potential to increase overall prevention of cervical cancer from approximately 70% to approximately 90%.” Thus the novel 9vHPV vaccine offers hope in bringing us even closer to achieving this epidemiological goal. “With this vaccine cervical and other HPV-related cancers could potentially get eliminated, if a good coverage could be achieved. This has not only an impact on treatment costs but also on cervical screening algorithms and long-term costs,” highlighted Dr. Elmar A Joura.

Dengue It: Dengue-Specific Immune Response Offers Hope for Vaccine Design

 

By Asu Erden

The dengue virus is a mosquito-borne pathogen that infects between 50 and 100 million people every year. Furthermore, the World Health Organization estimates that approximately half of the global population is at risk. Yet there are currently neither vaccines nor medicines available against this disease, whose symptoms range from mild flu-like illness to severe hemorrhagic fever. The central challenge in designing a vaccine against dengue is that infection can be caused by any of four antigenically related viruses, also called serotypes. Moreover, prior infection with one serotype does not protect against the other three. In fact, such heterotypic exposure can result in much more severe secondary infections – a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement. The lack of knowledge about naturally occurring neutralizing antibodies against dengue viruses has hindered the development of an efficient vaccine. A new study published in the journal Nature Immunology by Professor Screaton’s team at Imperial College, London, may allow the field to overcome this barrier.

 

In this month’s issue of Nature Immunology, Dejnirattisai and colleagues present their characterization of novel antibodies identified from seven hospitalized dengue patients. They first isolated monoclonal antibodies – antibodies made by identical immune cells derived from the same parent cell – from immune cells in the blood of these patients. Among the isolated antibodies, a group emerged that recognized a key component of the dengue virus envelope known as dengue E protein. But unlike previously identified antibodies, this group specifically recognized the envelope dimer epitope (EDE) of dengue, which results from the coming together of two envelope protein subunits on the mature virion rather than a single E protein.

 

The novelty of the study lies in its identification of a novel epitope – EDE – a potent immunogen capable of eliciting highly neutralizing antibodies against dengue. Previously identified antibodies did not show great efficacy against the virus. Antibodies that do not bind dengue antigens sufficiently strongly or are not present at a high enough concentration end up coating the virus through a process named opsonization. This is believed to lead to a more efficient uptake of the virus by immune cells thus fostering a more severe infection by infectious and sometimes also by non-infectious viral particles. This is the issue facing the field. An effective dengue vaccine would have to elicit a potent antibody response able to neutralize the virus while circumventing antibody-dependent enhancement. The antibodies characterized in this study present the peculiarity of efficiently neutralizing dengue virus produced in both insect cells and human cells – both relevant for the lifecycle of the virus – and being fully cross-reactive against the four serotypes.

 

The identification of highly neutralizing antibodies with an efficiency of 80-100%, cross-reactive against the dengue virus serocomplex, and able to bind both partially and fully mature viral particles offers hope for the design of a putative subunit vaccine. Mimicking potent immune responses seen in patients facilitates the process of vaccine development since it removes the need for identifying viral antigens relevant for protection not seen in nature. The naturally occurring responses already point in the right direction. Of the two dengue vaccine trials, neither relied on insight from such immune responses in patients infected with the virus. Based on the present study, it seems that the next step facing the field is to efficiently elicit an immune response that specifically targets EDE. If the antibodies identified here are shown to initiate protection in vivo, Dejnirattisai et al.’s study will have brought the field forward incommensurably.

You Can Help Cure Ebola!

 

By  Jesica Levingston Mac leod, PhD

Since the start of the outbreak last March, Ebola virus has already taken more than 8.000 lives and infected more than 21.200 people, according to the  Center for Disease Control (CDC). The panic raised from this situation rushed the testing of therapies to stop the outbreak and the research on the Ebola virus has seen a rebirth. Some research groups that have been working in this field for a long time can now openly ask for help. One of these groups is the one lead by Dr. Erica Ollman Shaphire at The Scripps Research Institute, California. In 2013 they published in Cell an analysis of the different conformations of Ebola VP40 (Viral Protein 40) aka the shape-shifting “transformer” protein. They reported 3 different conformations of this protein, and how this variety allows it to achieve multiple functions in the viral replication circle. This Ebola virus protein along with the glycoprotein would be used as target for anti viral research. In order to find new anti-virals, their approach is an in-silico scrutiny of thousands of compounds, using viral protein crystal structures in the in silico docking to find leads that may be tested in the lab as inhibitors. IBM is already helping them in this project, generating the World Community Grid to find drugs through the Outsmart Ebola Together project.  Here is where you can start helping, as this project involves a huge amount of data and computing time, they need volunteers that can donate their devices spare computing time (android, computer, kindle fire, etc) to generate a faster virtual supercomputer than can accelerate the discover of new potential drugs. This approach has been shown to be successful for other diseases like HIV and malaria, so you are welcome to join the fight against Ebola virus: https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/oet1/overview.do.

If you do not have any of these devices (I hope you are enjoying the public library free computers), you can still help Dr. Shapire quest to discover new therapies against Ebola. Her group is now “working to support the salary of a computer scientist to help process the data we are generating with the world community grid” as she describes it. To help identify the most promising drug leads for further testing you can donate money on: www.crowdrise.com/cureebola.

Other groups that were mostly working on other viruses, like Flu, also joined the race to discover efficient therapies. For example, last month, the Emerging Microbes and Infections journal of the Nature Publishing Group published the identification of 53 drugs that are potential inhibitors of the Ebola virus. One of the authors of this paper is Dr. Carles Martínez-Romero, from Dr. Adolfo García-Sastre’s lab in the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. In the study, Dr. Martínez-Romero and collaborators described how they narrowed the search from 2.816 FDA approved compounds to 53 potential antiviral drugs. This high-throughput screening was possible thanks to the use of the Ebola viral-like particle (VLP) entry assay. This allows studying Ebola viral entry without using the ”real”, full replicative virus. These 53 compounds blocked the entry of Ebola VLPs into the cell. Understanding how these market-ready compounds can inhibit Ebola entry and its infectious cycle will pave the way for a new generation of treatments against Ebola virus-associated disease.

Dr. Martínez-Romero had an early interest in science; “Since I was a child, I showed great interest in biological sciences and a great desire to question and discover. This led me to pursue my studies in Biotechnology in order to become a successful researcher.”Viruses are very interesting to me because, although they are not strictly living organisms, they are as old as life itself. Even though they are the origin of many illnesses in mammals and other organisms alike, we are tightly interconnected with viruses and they will continue shaping our evolution throughout the years to come.

I also asked him about advice to his fellow researchers, and he answered: “There is a famous quote of Dr. Albert Einstein: “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called Research”. As postdocs and researchers in general, we are constantly pursuing new hypotheses. It is a very arduous path with its ups and downs but full of rewards and new challenges ahead.” About the future of the antiviral research, he keeps a positive view: “Several antiviral therapies are being developed to combat the current Ebola outbreak, such as antibody cocktails (Zmapp), antiviral drugs, and specific Ebola vaccines. Together with re-purposing screens like the one we published, a combination of therapeutic drugs can be used to obtain better antiviral strategies against the Ebola virus.”

If Only Santa Would be Real…When Are We Going to Have a Universal Flu Vaccine?

 

By Jesica Levingston Mac leod, PhD

Wouldn’t it be great if the answer to that question was “next year” (yep, only a 1 month wait). Sadly, besides all the astonishing efforts of various researchers groups we are just entering the clinical studies that might lead towards a safe and effective vaccine.

Probably you already heard about the antigenic mismatch with the current vaccine (for the strain H3N2): this means that the strains used in the vaccine could potentially not completely cover one or more of the seasonal influenza virus varieties. Therefore, if you got the flu shot, you might get sick anyways.

The concept behind the universal vaccine is to bypass the antigenic mismatch problem and other issues related with the way in which the vaccines are formulated nowadays. As Drs. Natali Pica and Peter Palese explained last year (Pica et al. 2013), the vaccines are prepared year by year with the aim to protect against the virus strains that are predicted to circulate in the next period. But, and there is always a “but” in predictions, an unexpected mutation in the virus not contemplated in the vaccine production, could conclude in a pandemic.

The clue came from thinking outside of the box, and breaking with the traditional dogmas in flu vaccine production. When you get infected with the influenza virus, your immune system targets the head domain of the HA (Hemagglutinin) protein, so the current vaccine production approach was to aim for this antigen. The bad news is that this domain changes every year. The flu vaccines are based on inactivated viruses , when you receive this vaccine, you will generate antibodies to fight these specific HA proteins. In Dr. Palese’s lab they are focus on regions of influenza HA protein that are highly conserved across virus subtypes, like the stalk domain of the HA protein. Also, he is engineering different HA chimeras. This strategy has been really successful, showing protection in animal models (mice and ferrets), and the vaccines were approved to go to clinical trial next year. This universal vaccine offered good protection for pandemics H5N1 and H7N9 influenza viruses.

Another strategy, published in Nature Medicine (Sridhar et al.) reports that targeting conserved core proteins using virus-specific CD8+ T cells (lymphocytes or white blood cells with a vital role in the immune system) could provide a draft for a universal influenza vaccine. But… even the scientists implicated in the research were not very positive about how long is going to take to translate this technique to the “outside the lab” world.

The third strategy is coming from an Italian group (Vitelli et al. 2013), and this potential universal influenza vaccine is been tested in animal models by the FDA.  This vaccine uses as a vector the virus PanAd3 (it was isolated from a great ape), which carries 2 genes that express proteins conserved among a variety of influenza viruses. The 2 viral proteins, the matrix protein (M1) and the nucleoprotein (NP), could be expressed for the human cells infected with the recombinant PanAd3 virus and immunize the patient against different influenza viruses.

Other entrepreneurial ideas are blooming around the world in order to solver the “influenza virus infection” problem. The influenza virus kills around 500,000 people annually worldwide (WHO), and affects very negatively the life of other hundreds of thousands. In fact, I do not know anybody who did not got the flu at least ones, I encourage to try to find somebody who was never sick with flu symptoms. This points out how universal this problem is and therefore it should get an universal solution soon.

Marvelous Month of Immunology

 

By Stephanie Swift, PhD

 

Balancing modern and ancient anti-viral immunity

The human genome is stuffed full of ancient retrovirus genomes, a heritable legacy of ancestral infections. These pieces of DNA are dynamic elements, and can hop around the human genome and drive its ongoing diversification. Mostly, though, they are kept subdued by epigenetic changes that prevent them doing any damage. While identifying threatening new viral genetic material is an important job for our innate immune system, there is typically no reaction against these ancient endogenous benign retrovirus cDNAs that in modern terms are essentially a part of our own genome. Yet scientists have now implicated this evolutionary trade off between the immune system being able to sense and react against infectious DNA viruses (like retroviruses, adenoviruses, herpesviruses) while staying quiet against non-infectious ancient viral elements in certain autoimmune diseases, like Aicardi–Goutières syndrome (AGS). In AGS, mutations in the Trex1 exonuclease enzyme allow non-infectious ancient retroviral nucleic acids to accumulate and cause heart damage. They speculate that the immune system is almost inappropriately constrained against sensing these dangerous pools of foreign DNA, leading to autoimmune consequences. Happily, though, there is a potential treatment: using reverse-transcriptase inhibitors to prevent the formation of ancient retroviral immunostimulatory cDNAs in the first place. Learn more about anti-viral immunity here.

[hr]

Parasite proves proficient at immune scooping

As T cells bumble around our bodies, they are on constant stand-by to recognise pathogenic target proteins. These pieces of protein are presented to T cells for inspection by other immune cells, known as antigen-presenting cells (APCs). The T cells scoop up the pieces of protein being held up for inspection by the APC, along with a tiny bit of the APC membrance in a process known as trogocytosis. This leads to T cell activation and killing of infected target cells. Now, scientists have discovered that trogocytosis is also used by the gastrointestinal parasite, Entamoeba histolytica, to chew away at individual host cells in the gut until they die. Once that happens, the parasite moves on to the next tasty cell snack. It also appears that practise makes perfect: the parasite refines its killing skills and becomes quicker at ingesting target cells as it spreads from cell-to-cell. Now we know that trogocytosis is involved in this nasty, potentially fatal gastrointestinal disease, we can begin to design therapies that block this pathway and stop the parasite in its tracks.

[hr]

Childhood obesity linked to poor vaccine protection

Obese adults are at a greater risk of getting infected by – and dying from – influenza viruses like the pandemic H1N1. So, it’s probably very important for obese individuals to get their flu shot each year. Yet interesting research coming out of the lab of Melinda Beck at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is starting to paint a rather startling picture showing that obese people don’t develop good responses to vaccines compared to healthy weight controls. Antibody levels in the blood decline more quickly over time, and T cells don’t get as robustly activated or produce the same quantity of toxic molecules designed to kill invading pathogens. Even more worryingly, these impaired vaccine responses are not just restricted to obese adults, but are seen in obese children as well. In Canada, an estimated 31.5% of children between the ages of 5-17 are overweight or obese. Since a number of serious childhood infections, including measles and whooping cough, are on the rise, obesity could be a modern risk factor contributing towards the development of serious disease, potentially even in vaccinated individuals where primed immune responses just aren’t as good at dealing with infections.

[hr]

Huge new database finds early transcriptional programs driving vaccine immunity

In recent years, scientists have made huge progress in furthering our understanding of how the immune system works, and applying this knowledge to vaccine design. Yet we are still pretty much in the dark about what makes a “good” vaccine. Are live replicating microorganisms better than dead ones? Is it better to generate an antibody or a T cell response? Are central memory or effector memory T cells better? Big data promises to help us get to the bottom of these questions, and ten thousand others just like them. By analysing huge data sets, we can begin to tease out correlations and signatures that predict if (and how) a vaccine will protect against its designated disease. Scientists at Emory University recently took the big data approach and created a hugely powerful database loaded with the molecular profiles of over 30,000 human blood transcriptomes from ~500 studies. They used this to look for a signature of protection across 5 successful human vaccines (2 against Neisseria meningitidis, 1 against yellow fever virus and 2 against influenza virus). Since their tested vaccines varied in their nature – some were conjugate vaccines made up of two distinct parts, while some were live attenuated vaccines – it was tricky to come up with a universal vaccination signature between all 5 vaccines beyond the basics of “B cell activation” or “leucocyte differentiation”. Happily, though, it was possible to see similar signatures of immunogenicity within a vaccine class. For example, vaccines that had a large carbohydrate component tended to induce stronger T cell responses, while live attenuated vaccines upregulated larger innate immunity and interferon responses. Very interestingly, they also observed that the two-part vaccines generated a dual-profile immune response established by two distinct molecular mechanisms.

[hr]

These posts were originally posted on the Stojdl lab blog.