Researchers conducted antibody testing on ‘remainder plasma,’ which could inform strategies for ongoing SARS-CoV-2 clinical laboratory surveillance testing
In a clever use of stored clinical laboratory specimens, researchers in California conducted a nationwide seroprevalence survey—serology testing to determine the number of people in a population that carry a specific disease—that used “remainder plasma” from dialysis patients to look for antibodies to the COVID-19 infection. They found that—as of July—fewer than one in 10 adults tested had acquired antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
According to Julie Parsonnet, MD, Stanford Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Population Health, and a study author, this indicates that the US population is a long way from herd immunity to COVID-19. “This is the largest study to date to confirm that we are nowhere near herd immunity,” she said in a Stanford Medicine press release.
Herd immunity is the point at which a large part of the population becomes immune to a specific disease. Scientists, according to the Stanford press release, estimate that 60%-70% of the population must have antibodies to the coronavirus before COVID-19 fades.
The graphic above taken from Stanford Medicine’s published study illustrates the “prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in sampled population, by state. Bolded borders represent states with more than 100 patients in the sample. The median number of patients sampled by state was 176 (IQR 83–536). States in white were not sampled.” (Graphic copyright: Stanford University.)
Dense Urban Populations at Greater Risk for COVID-19
The Stanford researchers analyzed samples of remainder plasma from 28,503 randomly selected patients receiving dialysis in July at more than 1,300 dialysis facilities in 46 states. They found that 8% of people were positive for COVID-19 antibodies, which when standardized to the US adult population, equals 9.3% nationwide, the study notes.
However, they also found that people living in densely populated areas were 10 times more likely to show evidence of past COVID-19 infection, and that people living in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods were two to three times more likely to be seropositive than those in white neighborhoods, the researchers wrote.
Of the use of remainder plasma for their study, the researchers wrote, “Testing remainder plasma from monthly samples obtained for routine care of patients on dialysis for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies therefore represents a practical approach to a population-representative surveillance strategy, informing risks faced by a susceptible population while ensuring representation from racial and ethnic minorities.
“In addition, seroprevalence surveys in patients receiving dialysis can be linked to patient-level and community-level data to enable evaluation and quantification of differences in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence by demographic and neighborhood strata, and thus facilitate effective mitigation strategies targeting the highest-risk individuals and communities,” added the researchers.
When standardized to the US dialysis population, seroprevalence ranged from 3.5% (95% CI, 3.1-3.9) in the West to 27.2% (95% CI, 25.9-28.5) in the Northeast.
Large variations in seroprevalence by state were seen, with early COVID-19 hot spots such as New York (33.6%), Louisiana (17.6%), and Illinois (17.5%) having higher rates than neighboring states—Pennsylvania (6.4%), Arkansas (1.9%), and Missouri (1.9%).
When compared with other measures of SARS-CoV-2 spread, seroprevalence correlated best with deaths per 100,000 population.
“With this survey, we were able to provide a very rich picture of the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. that can hopefully help inform strategies to curb the epidemic moving forward by targeting vulnerable populations,” said Shuchi Anand, MD (above left, with fellow Nephrologists Colin Lenihan and Michelle O’Shaughnessy), Director of Stanford’s Center for Tubulointerstitial Kidney Disease and lead author of the study. (Photo copyright: Stanford Medicine.)
Nearly 10% of COVID-Positives Are Undiagnosed
In another important finding that compared seroprevalence and case counts per 100,000 population as of June 15, the study reports that only 9.2% of the COVID-19 seropositives had been diagnosed with the disease.
Because dialysis patients get monthly laboratory blood tests that generate leftover blood plasma samples, researchers believe this remainder plasma can serve an important role in tracking COVID-19’s prevalence in the general population.
“Not only is this patient population representative of the US population, but they are one of the few groups of people who can be repeatedly tested,” said Anand in the Stanford press release. “This is a potential strategy for ongoing SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and surveillance.”
“Questions remain around the longevity of the immune response and correlates of protection, but high-quality longitudinal serosurveillance with accompanying clinical data can help to provide the answers,” they wrote. “Anand and colleagues deserve credit for pioneering a scalable sampling strategy that offers a blueprint for standardized national serosurveillance in the USA and other countries with a large haemodialysing population.”
Pandemic Fatigue and the Vaccine
While the promised vaccine provides hope for an end to the pandemic, experts say the battle is far from won.
“We are still in the middle of the fight,” epidemiologist Eli Rosenberg, PhD, Associate Professor at the University at Albany in New York, who was not part of the Stanford study, told the Washington Post, “We’re all tired, and we’re all hoping for a vaccine. This shows us how it’s not over here, not even by a long shot.”
What is obvious is that clinical laboratories will continue to play a vital role in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, just as the management and scientific team at Ascend Clinical Laboratories recognized that remainder plasma from testing dialysis patients could be the foundation of a national seroprevalence survey for COVID-19, other clinical laboratories in different regions of the United States may have similar resources that can be adapted as tools to study and understand the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Holmes’ lawyers maintain the former CEO of Theranos has not waived right to be charged by indictment and therefore argue the added charge is ‘unconstitutional’ and should be dismissed
Clinical laboratory leaders needing a break from nonstop coronavirus pandemic news will be interested to learn a familiar name is again making headlines. Disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes—who went from paper billionaire to criminal defendant—is now facing a 12th felony fraud charge, with the additional count tied to a patient’s blood-test result.
Holmes founded the blood testing company in 2003 after dropping out of Stanford University. Though Theranos reached a peak valuation of $9 billion in 2015, according to Investopedia its unicorn-startup status began unraveling that same year when a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigation exposed the company’s massive deceptions and questionable practices related to its finger-prick blood-testing technology.
Holmes and codefendant Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, former Theranos President and Chief Operating Officer, claimed Theranos had developed a medical technology that could run thousands of clinical laboratory tests using a finger-prick blood test that would return results in two hours and at a price that was 50% of Medicare’s fees for lab tests.
sanctions from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, investor lawsuits, consumer lawsuits, and a settlement with Walgreens over claims about Theranos’ Edison portable blood analyzer, CNBC reported. Theranos ceased operations in September 2018.
Elizabeth Holmes is seen above entering the Northern District of California courthouse with attorneys Kevin Downey (left) and Lance Wade (right) of the law firm Williams and Connolly. (Photo copyright: Jason Doiy/ALM)
The 12th Felony Charge Against Elizabeth Holmes
Earlier in 2018, David L. Anderson, US Attorney for the Northern District of California indicted Holmes and Balwani on 11 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Now, an additional wire fraud charge has been added to that list. The 12th felony charge was included in Superseding Information federal prosecutors filed with the court on May 8. Superseding Information is a charging document that does not require a grand jury proceeding.
In the filing, the latest allegation of fraud is alleged to have occurred on October 12, 2015, in the states of California and Arizona and is described as a “telephone call from Patient B.B. to Theranos regarding laboratory blood test results.”
The Superseding Information states: “Knowing that the accuracy and reliability of Theranos test results was questionable and suspect, Holmes and Balwani oversaw the electronic wiring of test results to patients, including persons known to the Attorney for the United States as Patients B.B, E.T., and M.E. These wires … travelled between one state and another.”
The amended charging document also more than doubles the length of time the pair are alleged to have conspired to defraud investors, adds additional categories of alleged victims, and revises the dates of two of the other prior wire fraud charges, changing them from 2014 to 2015.
“In particular, Holmes and Balwani knew that Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests, including but not limited to bicarbonate, calcium, chloride, cholesterol/HDL/LDL, gonorrhea, glucose, HbA1c, hCG, HIV, LDH, potassium, PSA, PT/INR, sodium, testosterone, TSH, vitamin D (25-OH), and all assays conducted on Theranos’ TSPU [Theranos Sample Processing Unit] version 3.5, including estradiol, prolactin, SHBG, thyroxine (T4/free T4), triiodothyronine, and vitamin B-12,” the Superseding Information states.
According to Law.com, Holmes’ lawyers at Williams and Connolly responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Superseding Information. Because grand jury proceedings have been suspended in the Northern District of California since mid-March due to COVID-19, they argue that Holmes, who hasn’t waived the right to be charged by grand jury indictment, is unable to be arraigned. They maintain the prosecutors’ actions violate her rights under the US Constitution and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 7, which requires crimes punishable by a prison sentence of more than a year to be charged by indictment unless the defendant waives that right.
“Because Ms. Holmes does not waive prosecution by indictment, convening an arraignment on this information would be pointless and a waste of the Court’s time because no arraignment could actually occur,” her lawyers wrote in their motion. “The Court should dismiss this unconstitutional information without scheduling an arraignment.”
On May 26, prosecutors filed their opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. They maintained that US District Judge Edward Davila should either deny the defense request outright or hold off ruling until a “reasonable time after the Court lifts the suspension of grand jury hearings.”
They wrote, “Defendants’ claim that an information must be ‘dismissed immediately’ because it is not the constitutionally required indictment proves too much,” adding, “Criminal charges are initiated all the time through preliminary proceedings like a complaint or an information. They are not ‘patently unconstitutional merely because a defendant has indicated she will not waive her right to be prosecuted by indictment.”
COVID-19 Delays Court Proceedings
Holmes’ trial originally was set to begin in August, but the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the case being postponed to October 27, reported CNBC. According to Davila, “We’re in unchartered waters and unchartered territories. We need to make sure the environment is safe for all parties, including the jury that’s called to hear the matter.”
The Theranos scandal continues to serve as a reminder to clinical laboratory leaders
and pathology groups that questionable or deceptive business practices eventually will draw the attention of federal regulators, prosecutors, and consumers, and that the penalty for fraud can be severe. The frustration for medical laboratory professionals and pathologists is that it generally takes years for federal investigators to bring charges against such frauds.
By taking early measures to combat the spread, the country had a medical laboratory test for COVID-19 available as early as Jan. 24, and was able to focus medical laboratory testing on the most at-risk individuals
With the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak dominating headlines and medical laboratories under growing pressure to increase testing capacity, Taiwan’s rapid response to the pandemic could provide a critical model for other countries to follow.
Given its proximity to mainland China—just 81 miles—and the large number of individuals who frequently travel back and forth between the countries, Taiwan was at risk of having the second-highest number of imported COVID-19 cases, according to a model developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of New South Wales Sydney. News reports indicate that, each year, about 60,000 flights carry 10 million passengers between Taiwan and China.
Data from Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) indicate that the country has managed to contain the outbreak thanks to these aggressive actions.
As of March 19, Taiwan’s CECC reported a total of 108 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections. That compares with 81,155 in China, 41,035 in Italy, and 10,755 in the US, according to data compiled by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. When the World Health Organization (WHO) reports on the number of COVID-19 cases by country, it includes the number of COVID-19 cases from Taiwan under the totals for the People’s Republic of China. WHO made this decision several years ago, under pressure by China to not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
The World
Population Review website says Taiwan’s population is about 23.8 million.
But its infection rate is low even on a per capita basis: Approximately 45
infections per million population, compared with 6,784 in Italy, 564 in China,
and 326 per million in the US.
The JAMA authors noted that Taiwan was prepared for
an outbreak after its experience with the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic in 2003, which also originated
in China.
Timeline of COVID-19 Outbreak at the Earliest Stages
Taiwan apparently learned a lesson about preparedness from
the SARS outbreak the rest of the world did not and that enabled the tiny
nation to respond immediately to the novel Coronavirus threat.
The country’s efforts began on Dec. 31 with inspections of
flight arrivals from Wuhan. “When there were only a very few cases [of
COVID-19] reported in China, [Taiwanese health authorities] already went onto
every airplane that came from Wuhan,” C. Jason Wang,
MD, PhD, an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes, and
Prevention at Stanford University and lead author of the JAMA
report, told Vox.
“Health officials came on the airplane and checked people for symptoms,” he
added.
Travelers who had recently visited Wuhan and displayed
symptoms of pneumonia were quarantined at home for 14 days. Taiwan’s
CDC reported that quarantined individuals were being tested for the
2019-nCoV coronavirus (later renamed to SARS-CoV-2)
soon after it was identified. The CECC, activated in January to coordinate the
government’s response, reported the first confirmed imported case on Jan. 21.
On Jan. 24, their
CDC announced that testing for the virus was being performed at the CDC and
eight designated hospitals. Testing included samples from physicians around the
country. As of Feb. 17, daily testing capacity was about 1,300 samples, the JAMA
authors reported.
Wang told Vox that aggressive measures to identify
and isolate at-risk individuals at the earliest stages reduced the volume of clinical
laboratory tests that had to be performed. “Here in the US and elsewhere, we’re
now seeing community spread,” he said. “It’s probably been here for a while.
And so now we’re trying to see, ‘Oh, how many people should we test?’ Then, you
really need to have a very large capacity in the beginning.”
“I think the US has enormous capacity that’s currently not being used,” C. Jason Wang, MD, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes, and Prevention at Stanford University and lead author of the JAMA report, told Vox. “We have big tech companies that really could do a lot, right? We ought to get the big companies together. Get the governors together, get the federal government agencies to work with each other, and try to find innovative ways to think about how to best do this. We’ve got the smartest people here in the US because they come from everywhere. But right now, those are untapped resources. They’re not working together. And the federal government, the agencies, they need to collaborate a little more closely.” (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
More Actions by Authorities
The JAMA report supplementary materials notes a total of 124 actions taken by Taiwanese authorities between Jan. 20 and Feb. 24 to contain the outbreak. In addition to the border inspections, quarantines and testing, they included integration of data between the country’s National Health Insurance Administration and National Immigration Agency, so authorities, and later hospitals, could identify any patient who had recently traveled to China, Hong Kong, or Macau.
The steps also included:
An escalating series of travel restrictions,
eventually including suspension of most passenger flights from Taiwan to China,
as well as a suspension of tours to Hong Kong or Macau.
Use of government-issued cell phones to monitor
quarantined individuals.
Fines for individuals breaking the 14-day home
quarantine.
Fines for incoming travelers who failed to
provide accurate health information.
Fines for disseminating false information or
rumors about the epidemic.
Fines and jail sentences for profiteering on disease-prevention
products.
Designation of military camps and other
government facilities for quarantine.
Nationwide disinfection of universities,
colleges, and public spaces around schools.
The government also took aggressive action to ensure
adequate supplies of surgical masks, including stepped-up manufacturing, export
bans, price limits, and a limit of one to three masks per purchase.
The JAMA authors noted that government officials issued daily press briefings to educate the public about the outbreak. Communication efforts also included public service announcements by Taiwan Vice President Chen Chien-jen, a trained epidemiologist.
A poll taken in Taiwan on Feb. 17 and 18 indicated high approval ratings for officials’ response to the crisis.
The JAMA authors also noted some “challenges” in the
government’s response. For example, most real-time public communication was in
Mandarin Chinese and sign language, leaving out non-Taiwanese citizens in the
country. And the cruise ship Diamond Princess, later found to have infections
on board, was allowed to dock near Taipei and disembark passengers. There are
also questions about whether similar policies can be sustained through the end
of a pandemic.
Still, “well-trained and experienced teams of officials were
quick to recognize the crisis and activated emergency management structures to
address the emerging outbreak,” the JAMA authors wrote. “Taiwan is an
example of how a society can respond quickly to a crisis and protect the
interests of its citizens.”
One noteworthy difference in the speedy response to
recognition of a novel coronavirus in Taiwan, compared to recognition of the
same novel coronavirus in the United States, was the fast availability of
clinical laboratory tests for COVID-19 in Taiwan.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals here in
the US are frustrated that their skills and talents at developing and
validating new assays on an accelerated timeline were not acknowledged and
leveraged by government officials as they decided how to respond to the
emergence of the novel coronavirus now called SARS-CoV-2.
Researchers are discovering it’s possible to determine a person’s age based on the amount of protein in the blood, but the technology isn’t always correct
Mass spectrometry is increasingly finding its way into clinical laboratories and with it—proteomics—the study of proteins in the human body. And like the human genome, scientists are discovering that protein plays an integral part in the aging process.
This is a most interesting research finding. Might medical laboratories someday use proteomic biomarkers to help physicians gauge the aging progression in patients? Might this diagnostic capability give pathologists and laboratory leaders a new product line for direct-to-consumer testing that would be a cash-paying, fast-growing, profitable clinical laboratory testing service? If so, proteomics could be a boon to clinical laboratories worldwide.
When research into genomics was brand-new, virtually no one imagined that someday the direct-to-consumer lab testing model would offer genetic testing to the public and create a huge stream of revenue for clinical laboratories that process genetic tests. Now, research into protein and aging might point to a similar possibility for proteomics.
For example, through proteomics, researchers led by Benoit Lehallier, PhD, Biostatistician, Instructor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, and senior author Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and co-director of the Stanford Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Stanford University in California, gained an understanding of aging that suggest intriguing possibilities for clinical laboratories.
In their study, published in Nature, titled, “Undulating Changes in Human Plasma Proteome Profiles Across the Lifespan,” the scientists stated that aging doesn’t happen in a consistent process over time, reported Science Alert.
The Stanford researchers also found that they can accurately
determine a person’s age based on the levels of certain proteins in his or her
blood.
Additionally, the study of proteomics may finally explain why blood from young people can have a rejuvenating effect on elderly people’s brains, noted Scientific American.
Each of these findings is important on its own, but taken
together, they may have interesting implications for pathologists who follow
the research. And medical laboratory leaders may find opportunities in mass
spectrometry in the near future, rather than decades from now.
Three Distinct Stages in Aging and Other Findings
The Stanford study found that aging appears to happen at
three distinct points in a person’s life—around the ages 34, 60, and 78—rather
than being a slow, steady process.
The researchers measured and compared levels of nearly 3,000
specific proteins in blood plasma taken from healthy people between the ages of
18 and 95 years. In the published study, the authors wrote, “This new approach
to the study of aging led to the identification of unexpected signatures and
pathways that might offer potential targets for age-related diseases.”
Along with the findings regarding the timeline for aging, the researchers found that about two-thirds of the proteins that change with age differ significantly between men and women. “This supports the idea that men and women age differently and highlights the need to include both sexes in clinical studies for a wide range of diseases,” noted a National Institutes of Health (NIH) report.
“We’ve known for a long time that measuring certain proteins in the blood can give you information about a person’s health status—lipoproteins for cardiovascular health, for example,” stated Wyss-Coray in the NIH report. “But it hasn’t been appreciated that so many different proteins’ levels—roughly a third of all the ones we looked at—change markedly with advancing age.”
Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD (above), Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University, was senior author of the proteomics study that analyzed blood plasma from 4,263 people between the ages 18-95. “Proteins are the workhorses of the body’s constituent cells, and when their relative levels undergo substantial changes, it means you’ve changed, too,” he said in a Stanford Medicine news article. “Looking at thousands of them in plasma gives you a snapshot of what’s going on throughout the body.” (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
Differentiating Aging from Disease
Previous research studies also found it is indeed possible
to measure a person’s age from his or her “proteomic signature.”
The researchers published their findings in Aging Cell, a peer-reviewed open-access journal of the Anatomical Society in the UK, titled, “Plasma Proteomic Signature of Age in Healthy Humans.” In it, the authors wrote, “Our results suggest that there are stereotypical biological changes that occur with aging that are reflected by circulating proteins.”
The fact that chronological age can be determined through a
person’s proteomic signature suggests researchers could separate aging from
various diseases. “Older age is the main risk factor for a myriad of chronic
diseases, and it is invariably associated with progressive loss of function in
multiple physiological systems,” wrote the researchers, adding, “A challenge in
the field is the need to differentiate between aging and diseases.”
Can Proteins Cause Aging?
Additionally, the Stanford study found that changes in protein levels might not simply be a characteristic of aging, but may actually cause it, a Stanford Medicine news article notes.
“Changes in the levels of numerous proteins that migrate
from the body’s tissues into circulating blood not only characterize, but quite
possibly cause, the phenomenon of aging,” Wyss-Coray said.
Can Proteins Accurately Predict Age? Not Always
There were, however, some instances where the protein levels inaccurately predicted a person’s age. Some of the samples the Stanford researchers used were from the LonGenity research study conducted by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, which investigated “why some people enjoy extremely long life spans, with physical health and brain function far better than expected in the 9th and 10th decades of life,” the study’s website notes.
That study included a group of exceptionally long-lived Ashkenazi Jews, who have a “genetic proclivity toward exceptionally good health in what for most of us is advanced old age,” according to the Stanford Medicine news article.
“We had data on hand-grip strength and cognitive function
for that group of people. Those with stronger hand grips and better measured
cognition were estimated by our plasma-protein clock to be younger than they
actually were,” said Wyss-Coray. So, physical condition is a factor in
proteomics’ ability to accurately prediction age.
Although understanding the connections between protein in
the blood, aging, and disease is in early stages, it is clear additional
research is warranted. Not too long ago the idea of consumers having their DNA
sequenced from a home kit for fun seemed like fantasy.
However, after multiple FDA approvals, and the success of
companies like Ancestry, 23andMe, and the clinical laboratories that serve them,
the possibility that proteomics might go the same route does not seem so
far-fetched.
With $191 million in startup capital, the genomics startup will draw on existing genetic databases to create personalized medicine therapies for chronic diseases
Why do some people get sick while others do not? That’s what genetic researchers at Maze Therapeutics want to find out. They have developed a new approach to using tools such as CRISPR gene editing to identify and manipulate proteins in genetic code that may be the key to providing personalized protection against specific diseases.
If viable, the results of Maze’s research could mean the development of specific drugs designed to mimic genetic code in a way that is uniquely therapeutic to specific patients. This also would create the need for clinical laboratories to sequence and analyze patients’ DNA to determine whether a patient would be a candidate for any new therapies that come from this line of research.
Based in San Francisco, Maze Therapeutics (Maze) is studying modifier genes—genes that affect the phenotype or physical properties of other genes—and attempting to create drugs that replicate them, reported MIT Technology Review. Maze believes that genetic modifiers could afford a “natural form of protection” against disease.
“If you have a disease-causing gene, and I have the disease-causing gene, why is it that you may be healthy and I may be sick? Are there other genes that come into play that provide a protective effect? Is there a drugging strategy to recover normal phenotype and recover from the illness?” Maze Chief Executive Officer Jason Coloma, PhD, asked in an interview with FierceBiotech.
In 2019, Maze received $191 million in financing from Third Rock Ventures, ARCH Venture Partners, and others, to find ways to translate their findings into personalized medicines, according to a news release. And with the availability of international public genetic databases and CRISPR gene editing, now may be good timing.
“This was the perfect time to get into this space with the tools that were being developed and the amount of data that has been accumulated on the human genetic side,” Charles Homcy, MD, Third Rock Ventures Partner and Maze Scientific Founder, told Forbes, which noted that Maze is tapping existing population-wide genetic databases and large-scale studies, including the United Kingdom’s Biobank and Finland’s Finngen.
To help find genetic modifier drug targets, Maze is accessing CRISPR gene editing capabilities. Jonathan Weissman, PhD, Maze Scientific Founder and Professor of Cellular Molecular Pharmacology at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), told MIT Technology Review: “You take a cell with a disease-causing gene and then see if you can turn it back to normal. We can do 100,000 experiments at once because each cell is its own experiment.”
“At Maze, we are focused on expanding our understanding of the natural disease protection provided by genetic modifiers through an integrated approach that combines studying natural human genetic variation across the globe and conducting large-scale experiments of gene perturbations,” Charles Homcy, MD (above), Founder and interim CEO of Maze and a partner at Third Rock Ventures, said in a news release. “Through our integrated approach, we believe we will create novel medicines based around those modifiers to treat a number of diseases.” (Photo copyright: Forbes.)
Using CRISPR to Identify the Cause of Disease
One drug research program reportedly progressing at Maze involves developing gene therapy for the neurogenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The program borrows from previous research conducted by Aaron Gitler, PhD, Professor of Genetics at Stanford University and Maze co-founder, which used CRISPR to find genetic modifiers of ALS. The scientists found that when they removed the protein coding gene TMX2 (Thioredoxin Related Transmembrane Protein 2), the toxicity of proteins building the disease was reduced, reported Chemical and Engineering News.
“We used the CRISPR-Cas9 system to perform genome-wide gene-knockout screens for suppressors and enhancers of C9ORF72 DPR toxicity in human cells,” Gitler and colleagues wrote in Nature Genetics. “Together, our results demonstrate the promise of using CRISPR-Cas9 screens in defining the mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases.”
“We have the flexibility to think differently. We like to
think of ourselves as part of this new breed of biotech companies,” Coloma told
FierceBiotech.
It’s an exciting time. Clinical laboratories can look
forward to new precision medicine diagnostic tests to detect disease and
monitor the effects of patient therapies. And the research initiatives by Maze
and other genetic companies represent a new approach in the use of genetic code
to create specific drug therapies targeted at specific diseases that work best
for specific patients.
The companion diagnostics that may come from this research would
be a boon to anatomic pathology.
