Scientist described the speed at which SARS-CoV-2’s full sequence of genetic material was made public as ‘unprecedented’ and medical labs are rushing to validate tests for this new disease
In the United States, headlines scream about the lack of
testing for the novel Coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19). News reporters ask daily why it is taking so long
for the US healthcare system to begin testing large numbers of patients for
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Yet, pathologists
and clinical
laboratory scientists know that new technologies for gene sequencing
and diagnostic testing are helping public health laboratories bring up tests
for a previously unknown new disease faster than at any time in the past.
At the center of the effort to develop accurate new assays
to detect SARS-CoV-2 and help diagnose cases of the COVID-19 disease are medical laboratory
scientists working in public health
laboratories, in academic medical centers, and in research labs across the
United States. Their collective efforts are producing results on a faster
timeline than in any previous discovery of a new infectious disease.
For example, during the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003, five months passed
between the first recognized case of the disease in China and when a team of
Canadian scientists cracked the genetic code of the virus, which was needed to
definitively diagnose SARS patients, ABC
News reported.
In contrast, Chinese scientists sequenced this year’s
coronavirus (originally named 2019-nCoV) and made it available on Jan. 10,
2020, just weeks after public health officials in Wuhan, China, reported the
first case of pneumonia from the unknown virus to the World Health Organization
(WHO), STAT
reported.
Increases in sequencing speed enabled biotechnology
companies to quickly create synthetic copies of the virus needed for research. Roughly
two weeks later, scientists completed sequencing nearly two dozen more samples
from different patients diagnosed with COVID-19.
Molecular biologist Kristian Andersen, PhD (above right, with graduate students who helped sequence the Zika virus), an Associate Professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research in California and Director of Infectious Disease Genomics at Scripps’ Translational Research Institute, worked on the team that sequenced the Ebola genome during the 2014 outbreak. He told STAT that the pace of sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is “unprecedented.” (Photo copyright: Scripps Research.)
Lower Sequencing Costs Speed COVID-19 Diagnostics Research
Additionally, a significant decline in the cost of genetic synthesis is playing an equally important role in helping scientists slow the spread of COVID-19.In its coverage of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, The Verge noted that two decades ago “it cost $10 to create a synthetic copy of one single nucleotide, the building block of genetic material. Now, it’s under 10 cents.” Since the coronavirus gene is about 30,000 nucleotides long, that price reduction is significant.
Faster sequencing and cheaper access to synthetic copies is
contributing to the development of diagnostic tests for COVID-19, an important
step in slowing the disease.
“This continues to be an evolving situation and the ability to distribute this diagnostic test to qualified medical laboratories is a critical step forward in protecting the public health,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in an FDA statement.
However, the Washington Post soon reported that the government-created coronavirus test kits contained a “faulty component,” which as of February 25 had limited testing in the US to only 426 people, not including passengers who returned to the US on evacuation flights. The Post noted that the nation’s public health laboratories took “the unusual step of appealing to the FDA for permission to develop and use their own [laboratory-developed] tests” for the coronavirus.
“This is an extraordinary request, but this is an extraordinary time,” Scott Becker,
Parallel efforts to develop and validate tests for COVID-19
are happening at the clinical laboratories of academic medical centers and in a
number of commercial laboratory companies. As these labs show their tests meet
FDA criteria, they become available for use by physicians and other healthcare
providers.
Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report just published an intelligence briefing about the urgent effort at the clinical laboratory of Northwell Health to develop both a manual COVID-19 assay and a test that can be run on the automated analyzers already in use in the labs at Northwell Health’s 23 hospitals. (See TDR, “Northwell Lab Team Validates COVID-19 Test on Fast Timeline,” March 9, 2020.)
Following the FDA’s March 13 EUA for the Thermo Fisher test,
Hahn said, “We have been engaging with test developers and encouraging them to
come to the FDA and work with us. Since the beginning of this outbreak, more
than 80 test developers have sought our assistance with development and
validation of tests they plan to bring through the Emergency Use Authorization
process. Additionally,” he continued, “more than 30 laboratories have notified
us they are testing or intend to begin testing soon under our new policy for
laboratory-developed tests for this emergency. The number of products in the
pipeline reflects the significant role diagnostics play in this outbreak and
the large number of organizations we are working with to bring tests to
market.”
Pharma Company Uses Sequencing Data to Develop Vaccine in
Record Time
Even as clinical laboratories work to develop and validate diagnostic tests for COVID-19, drug manufacturers are moving rapidly to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In February, Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna Therapeutics (NASDAQ:MRNA) announced it had shipped the first vials of its potential coronavirus vaccine (mRNA-1273) to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) for use in a Phase One clinical trial.
“The collaboration across Moderna, with NIAID, and with CEPI [Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations] has allowed us to deliver a clinical batch in 42 days from sequence identification,” Juan Andres, Chief Technical Operations and Quality Officer at Moderna, stated in a news release.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that NIAID expects to start a clinical trial of about 20 to 25 healthy volunteers by the end of April, with results available as early as July or August.
“Going into a Phase One trial within three months of getting the sequence is unquestionably the world indoor record,” NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told the WSJ. “Nothing has ever gone that fast.”
There are no guarantees that Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine
will work. Furthermore, it will require further studies and regulatory
clearances that could delay widespread distribution until next year.
Nonetheless, Fauci told the WSJ, “The only way you
can completely suppress an emerging infectious disease is with a vaccine. If
you want to really get it quickly, you’re using technologies that are not as
time-honored as the standard, what I call antiquated, way of doing it.”
In many ways, the news media has overlooked all the important
differences in how fast useful diagnostic and therapeutic solutions for
COVID-19 are moving from research settings into clinical use, when compared to
early episodes of the emergence of a new infectious disease, such as SARS in
2003.
The story the American public has yet to learn is how new
genetic sequencing technologies, improved diagnostic methods, and enhanced
informatics capabilities are being used by researchers, pathologists, and
clinical laboratory professionals to understand this new disease and give
healthcare professionals the tools they need to diagnose, treat, and monitor
patients with COVID-19.
Experts list the top challenges facing widespread adoption of proteomics in the medical laboratory industry
Year-by-year, clinical
laboratories find new ways to use mass spectrometry to
analyze clinical specimens, producing results that may be more precise than
test results produced by other methodologies. This is particularly true in the
field of proteomics.
However, though mass spectrometry is highly accurate and
fast, taking only minutes to convert a specimen into a result, it is not fully
automated and requires skilled technologists to operate the instruments.
Thus, although the science of proteomics is advancing
quickly, the average pathology laboratory isn’t likely to be using mass
spectrometry tools any time soon. Nevertheless, medical
laboratory scientists are keenly interested in adapting mass spectrometry
to medical lab test technology for a growing number of assays.
Molly Campbell, Science Writer and Editor in Genomics, Proteomics, Metabolomics, and Biopharma at Technology Networks, asked proteomics experts “what, in their opinion, are the greatest challenges currently existing in proteomics, and how can we look to overcome them?” Here’s a synopsis of their answers:
Lack of High Throughput Impacts Commercialization
Proteomics isn’t as efficient as it needs to be to be
adopted at the commercial level. It’s not as efficient as its cousin genomics. For it to become
sufficiently efficient, manufacturers must be involved.
John Yates
III, PhD, Professor, Department of Molecular Medicine at Scripps Research California
campus, told Technology
Networks, “One of the complaints from funding agencies is that you can
sequence literally thousands of genomes very quickly, but you can’t do the same
in proteomics. There’s a push to try to increase the throughput of proteomics
so that we are more compatible with genomics.”
For that to happen, Yates says manufacturers need to
continue advancing the technology. Much of the research is happening at
universities and in the academic realm. But with commercialization comes
standardization and quality control.
“It’s always exciting when you go to ASMS [the conference for the American Society
for Mass Spectrometry] to see what instruments or technologies are going to be
introduced by manufacturers,” Yates said.
There are signs that commercialization isn’t far off. SomaLogic, a privately-owned American protein
biomarker discovery and clinical diagnostics company located in Boulder, Colo.,
has reached the commercialization stage for a proteomics assay platform called SomaScan. “We’ll be
able to supplant, in some cases, expensive diagnostic modalities simply from a
blood test,” Roy
Smythe, MD, CEO of SomaLogic, told Techonomy.
The graphic above illustrates the progression mass spectrometry took during its development, starting with small proteins (left) to supramolecular complexes of intact virus particles (center) and bacteriophages (right). Because of these developments, today’s medical laboratories have more assays that utilize mass spectrometry. (Photo copyright: Technology Networks/Heck laboratory, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.)
Achieving the Necessary Technical Skillset
One of the main reasons mass spectrometry is not more widely
used is that it requires technical skill that not many professionals possess.
“For a long time, MS-based proteomic analyses were technically demanding at
various levels, including sample processing, separation science, MS and the
analysis of the spectra with respect to sequence, abundance and
modification-states of peptides and proteins and false discovery rate
(FDR) considerations,” Ruedi
Aebersold, PhD, Professor of Systems Biology at the Institute of Molecular Systems Biology (IMSB) at
ETH Zurich, told Technology
Networks.
Aebersold goes on to say that he thinks this specific
challenge is nearing resolution. He says that, by removing the problem created
by the need for technical skill, those who study proteomics will be able to
“more strongly focus on creating interesting new biological or clinical
research questions and experimental design.”
Yates agrees. In a paper titled, “Recent Technical Advances in
Proteomics,” published in F1000 Research, a peer-reviewed open research
publishing platform for scientists, scholars, and clinicians, he wrote, “Mass
spectrometry is one of the key technologies of proteomics, and over the last
decade important technical advances in mass spectrometry have driven an
increased capability of proteomic discovery. In addition, new methods to
capture important biological information have been developed to take advantage
of improving proteomic tools.”
No High-Profile Projects to Stimulate Interest
Genomics had the Human Genome Project
(HGP), which sparked public interest and attracted significant funding. One of
the big challenges facing proteomics is that there are no similarly big,
imagination-stimulating projects. The work is important and will result in
advances that will be well-received, however, the field itself is complex and difficult
to explain.
Emanuel
Petricoin, PhD, is a professor and co-director of the Center for Applied
Proteomics and Molecular Medicine at George
Mason University. He told Technology
Networks, “the field itself hasn’t yet identified or grabbed onto a
specific ‘moon-shot’ project. For example, there will be no equivalent to the
human genome project, the proteomics field just doesn’t have that.”
He added, “The equipment needs to be in the background and
what you are doing with it needs to be in the foreground, as is what happened
in the genomics space. If it’s just about the machinery, then proteomics will
always be a ‘poor step-child’ to genomics.”
Democratizing Proteomics
Alexander
Makarov, PhD, is Director of Research in Life Sciences Mass Spectrometry
(MS) at Thermo Fisher
Scientific. He told Technology
Networks that as mass spectrometry grew into the industry we have today,
“each new development required larger and larger research and development teams
to match the increasing complexity of instruments and the skyrocketing
importance of software at all levels, from firmware to application. All this
extends the cycle time of each innovation and also forces [researchers] to
concentrate on solutions that address the most pressing needs of the scientific
community.”
Makarov describes this change as “the increasing democratization of MS,” and says that it “brings with it new requirements for instruments, such as far greater robustness and ease-of-use, which need to be balanced against some aspects of performance.”
One example of the increasing democratization of MS may be
several public proteomic datasets available to scientists. In European
Pharmaceutical Review, Juan
Antonio Viscaíno, PhD, Proteomics Team Leader at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI)
wrote, “These datasets are increasingly reused for multiple applications, which
contribute to improving our understanding of cell biology through proteomics
data.”
Sparse Data and Difficulty Measuring It
Evangelia
Petsalaki, PhD, Group Leader EMBL-EBI, told Technology
Networks there are two related challenges in handling proteomic data.
First, the data is “very sparse” and second “[researchers] have trouble
measuring low abundance proteins.”
Petsalaki notes, “every time we take a measurement, we
sample different parts of the proteome or phosphoproteome and
we are usually missing low abundance players that are often the most important
ones, such as transcription
factors.” She added that in her group they take steps to mitigate those
problems.
“However, with the advances in MS technologies developed by
many companies and groups around the world … and other emerging technologies
that promise to allow ‘sequencing’ proteomes, analogous to genomes … I expect
that these will not be issues for very long.”
So, what does all this mean for clinical laboratories? At the
current pace of development, its likely assays based on proteomics could become
more common in the near future. And, if throughput and commercialization ever
match that of genomics, mass spectrometry and other proteomics tools could
become a standard technology for pathology laboratories.
FDA is streamlining how new diagnostic tests are approved; encourages IVD companies to focus on ‘qualifying biomarkers’ in development of new cancer drugs
It is good news for the anatomic pathology profession that new insights into the human immune system are triggering not only a wave of new therapeutic drugs, but also the need for companion diagnostic tests that help physicians decide when it is appropriate to prescribe immunotherapy drugs.
Rapid advances in precision medicine, and the discovery that a patient’s own immune system can be used to suppress chronic disease, have motivated pharmaceutical companies to pursue new research into creating targeted therapies for cancer patients. These therapies are based on a patient’s physiological condition at the time of diagnosis. This is the very definition of precision medicine and it is changing how oncologists, anatomic pathologists, and medical laboratories diagnose and treat cancer and other chronic diseases.
Since immunotherapy drugs require companion diagnostic tests, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) developers and clinical laboratory and pathology group leaders understand the stake they have in pharma companies devoting more research to developing these types of drugs.
New cancer drugs combined with targeted therapies would directly impact the future of anatomic pathology and medical laboratory testing.
Targeted Therapies Cost Less, Work Better
Targeted therapies focus on the mechanisms driving the cancer, rather than on destroying the cancer itself. They are designed to treat cancers that have specific genetic signatures.
One such example of a targeted therapy is pembrolizumab (brand name: Keytruda), a humanized antibody that targets the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor. The injection drug was primarily designed to treat melanoma. However, the FDA recently expanded its approval of Keytruda to include treatment of tumors with certain genetic qualities, regardless of the tumor’s location in the body. It was the first time the FDA has expanded an existing approval.
In a Forbes article, David Shaywitz, MD, PhD, noted that pembrolizumab had “an unprecedented type of FDA approval … authorizing its use in a wide range of cancers.” Shaywitz is Chief Medical Officer of DNAnexus in Mountain View, Calif.; Visiting Scientist, Department of Biomedical Informatics at Harvard Medical School; and Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Cancers with high mutational burdens respond to the therapy because they are more likely to have what Shaywitz calls “recognizable novel antigens called mutation-associated neoantigens, or MANAs.” Such cancers include melanomas, non-small cell lung cancer, some rare forms of colorectal cancers, and others.
Such therapies require genetic sequencing, and because sequencing is becoming faster and less expensive—as is the analysis of the sequencing—the information necessary to develop targeted therapies is becoming more accessible, which is part of what’s motivating pharma research.
Biomarkers and Traditional versus Modern Drug Testing and Development
At the same time pharma is developing new immunotherapies, the FDA is recognizing the benefit of faster approvals. In an FDA Voice blog post, Janet Woodcock, MD, Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the FDA, wrote, “In the past three years alone, [we have] approved more than 25 new drugs that benefit patients with specific genetic characteristics … and we have approved many more new uses—also based on specific genetic characteristics—for drugs already on the market.”
In his Forbes article, Shaywitz notes that pembrolizumab’s development foreshadows a “More general trend in the industry,” where the traditional phases of drug testing and development in oncology are becoming less clear and distinct.
Along with the changes to drug development and approval that precision medicine is bringing about, there are also likely to be changes in how cancer patients are tested. For one thing, biomarkers are critical for precision medicine.
However, pharmaceutical companies have not always favored using biomarkers. According to Shaywitz, “In general, commercial teams tend not to favor biomarkers and seek to avoid them wherever possible.” And that, “All things being equal, a doctor would prefer to prescribe a drug immediately, without waiting for a test to be ordered and the results received and interpreted.”
In July, just weeks after expanding its approval for Keytruda, the FDA approved a Thermo Fisher Scientific test called the Oncomine Dx Target Test. A Wired article describes it as “the first next-generation-sequencing-based test” and notes that it “takes a tiny amount of tumor tissue and reports on alterations to 23 different genes.”
Thermo Fisher’s Oncomine DX Target Test (above) is the first multi-drug next-generation sequencing test approved by the FDA. The test is a companion diagnostic for lung-cancer drugs made by Novartis and Pfizer. (Caption and photo copyright: Thermo Fisher Scientific.)
Unlike pembrolizumab, however, the Oncomine Dx Target Test did not enjoy fast-track approval. As Wired reported, “Getting the FDA’s approval took nearly two years and 220,000 pages of data,” in large part because it was the first test to include multiple genes and multiple drugs. Thus, according to Joydeep Goswami, PhD, President of Clinical Next Generation Sequencing at Thermo Fisher, “That put the technology under extraordinary scrutiny.”
FDA Encouraging Use of Biomarkers in Precision Medicine Therapies
The FDA, however, is taking steps to make that process easier. Woodcock noted in her FDA Voice blog post that the agency is actively encouraging drug developers to “use strategies based on biomarkers.” She added that the FDA currently “works with stakeholders and scientific consortia in qualifying biomarkers that can be used in the development of many drugs.”
Additionally, in a column he penned for Wired, Robert M. Califf, MD, former Commissioner of the FDA, states that the organization has “begun to lay out a flexible roadmap for regulatory approval.” He notes, “Given the complexity of NGS [next-generation-sequencing] technology, test developers need assurance as well, and we’ve tried to reduce uncertainty in the process.”
Regulations that assist IVD developers create viable diagnostics, while ensuring the tests are accurate and valid, will be nearly as important in the age of precision medicine as the therapies themselves.
All of these developmental and regulatory changes will impact the work done by pathologists and medical laboratories. And since precision medicine means finding the right drug for the individual patient, then monitoring its progress, all of the necessary tests will be conducted by clinical laboratories.
Faster approvals for these new drugs and tests will likely mean steep learning curves for pathologists. But if the streamlined regulation process being considered by the FDA works, new immunoassay tests and targeted therapies could mean improved outcomes for cancer patients.
Startup medical company proposes to offer free genetic testing to 100,000 advanced cancer patients to increase their chances for optimum therapeutic results
Strata Oncology (Strata), a precision medicine company based in Ann Arbor, Mich., plans to provide free genetic testing to advanced cancer patients beginning in 2017. The company raised $12-million dollars and teamed up with Thermo Fisher Scientific to complete the large-scale tumor sequencing project.
Using tumor tissue, Strata’s gene test sequences DNA and RNA to identify patients with certain gene mutations. This information is used to determine which cancer medications would be best for each patient. Patients are then referred to the appropriate pharmaceutical company for drug therapy and, potentially, for customized clinical trials.
Strata states on their website that their goal is to “dramatically expand late-stage cancer patients’ access to tumor sequencing and precision medicine trials, and to accelerate the approval and availability of breakthrough cancer medicines.” (more…)
Smaller, more affordable sequencers and genome sequence interpretation computers are catching the interest of pathologists and medical laboratory scientists
In the field of whole human genome sequencing, the technology continues to improve at a remarkable pace. Products now entering the research and clinical marketplace offer speedier, more accurate gene sequencing capabilities at prices that are within the budget reach of many clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology group practices.
Miniaturization and lower cost is driving genomic medicine ever closer to the routine clinical setting. The combination of next generation gene sequencers with a smaller footprint and advances in genomic data analysis technology mean that genomic testing will increasingly migrate to smaller lab settings. Dark Daily offers its readers a look at some of the latest gene sequencing products and what their manufacturers say about the capabilities of these gene-sequencing systems. (more…)
