You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gene Therapy Consortium’ tag.

post

It’s an exciting time for gene therapy with a myriad of disease indications being explored ranging from blindness to potential cures for HIV and successful clinical trials being conducted for infants with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). These awesome advances have not been ignored by RSRT which is why we recently launched a Gene Therapy Consortium (GTC) that is undertaking key experiments to determine if this approach is a feasible strategy for Rett. Program Director, Tim Freeman had a chance to sit in on a GTC meeting in Boston recently and shared his perspective in this post.

Gene therapy in the traditional sense delivers healthy genes into the body by way of a vector (Trojan horse) to compensate for mutated genes. But what if you could repair a gene by splicing out the mutation with “molecular scissors” and replacing it with the correct bits of DNA? Genome editing, as it’s called, is sounding less like futuristic science fiction and more like a tangible treatment.

A revolutionary new technology, Crispr-Cas9, which capitalizes on a naturally occurring molecular phenomenon allows for the mutated bits of DNA to be snipped out and the correct bits to be inserted. While this technology is not yet ready for prime-time there is lots of research taking place and progress is quick-paced.

What if you could go right to the root cause of that disease and repair the broken gene? That’s what people are excited about,”

– Katrine Bosley, Editas Medicine

We encourage you to read this Wall Street Journal article to learn more about Crispr-Cas9.

Advertisements

post

Dear Friends,

I had a remarkable experience recently at an all-day meeting in Boston with Monica and the scientists of RSRT’s Gene Therapy Consortium that I wanted to share.

The Consortium is a collaboration of four labs that are developing a way to use gene therapy to treat or maybe even reverse Rett symptoms. I certainly wasn’t expecting to add anything to the conversation at this meeting, and truth be told I was a little nervous about being there. I’m a parent, not a scientist, and here I was going to a meeting with some of the world’s leading gene therapy experts. This was going to be a far cry from tenth-grade biology class, which was a long time ago. I went to the meeting to be a fly on the wall, learn what I could, and try to get a big-picture sense of progress. It turned out I got all this, but I also got much more.

It was amazing and even moving to see these scientists talking so enthusiastically about gene therapy as a potential way to treat or cure our daughters. It’s one thing to read about these projects; it’s quite another to be there and see ten scientists (the four principal scientists brought lab members with them) discussing and sharing their progress. I was struck by how the Consortium is a true collaboration. These scientists were sharing ideas and resources freely, and I know they returned to their labs with critical new information. Something else that surprised me was their compassion. Maybe I was expecting a sort of detached scientific approach from them. But that’s not at all what I saw. The Consortium members care deeply about their work and the impact it will have on those with Rett. They are constantly thinking about the details of gene therapy of course—the over-and under-expression of genes, DNA packaging, and vector optimization (a vector is the vehicle or “Trojan Horse” that carries a healthy gene to a mutated cell)—but it’s all driven by a desire to change lives. This was wonderful to see. We have Monica to thank for propelling these and other scientists to care about outcomes for our daughters as much as she and all of us parents do.

It was also clear at this meeting that meaningful progress was being made. I’ve learned enough about gene therapy to understand that the vectors that Consortium members are developing are critical. An effective vector will need to deliver just the right amount and parts of a gene, which is much easier said than done. At the meeting one of the Consortium scientists presented data on a vector tested in mouse models that looks promising. While this is very good progress, a lot more research lies ahead. Using gene therapy to treat Rett remains theoretical until the Gene Therapy Consortium members prove otherwise.

Science is complex and I know sometimes it’s hard to envision exactly how funding for it is used. At this meeting I had an acute sense of how every dollar contributed to RSRT matters—what I watched unfold that day simply would not have happened without the generosity of many people. It was another reminder of how grateful I am to everyone who supports RSRT. I feel lucky to have been there and to have had the chance to literally watch progress being made. The meeting renewed my excitement about the future for my daughter and all the other girls and women I’ve met with Rett Syndrome.

Tim Freeman

by Monica Coenraads

I am delighted to give you a brief update on the MECP2 Gene Therapy Consortium, the collaboration of four elite labs that RSRT launched earlier this year. As you know, the Consortium is charged with developing gene therapy techniques that could treat or significantly reverse the symptoms of Rett. Our goal is to get to clinical trials. The project is grounded in work done last year by Consortium members Gail Mandel and Brian Kaspar that showed for the first time reversal of Rett symptoms in mice using gene therapy techniques that have the potential to be used in humans. The reversal of symptoms in mice was quite remarkable, but there are many challenges to translating that to a reversal in girls and women with Rett. The Consortium is attacking these challenges head on.

Earlier this month members of the Consortium met in the boardroom of a JFK Airport hotel in New York (we did not want to waste any of our meeting time traveling to and from a hotel in Manhattan). In addition to Gail Mandel, other members of the Consortium are Stuart Cobb (University of Glasgow), Steven Gray (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), and Brian Kaspar (Nationwide Children’s Hospital). The Consortium has a timeline of 3 years and a budget of $1.5 million. RSRT hosts in-person Consortium meetings twice a year as well as regularly scheduled conference calls.

consortium

From left moving clockwise:
Sarah Sinnet (Gray lab), Steve Gray, Brian Kaspar, Stuart Cobb, Saurabh Garg (Mandel lab), Kamal Gadalla (Cobb lab). 
Guest participant Ruth Shah (Bird lab) joined the meeting by Skype as did Gail Mandel and Mark Bailey.

The advantages gained by labs working collaboratively are clear: speed (four labs contributing to the work that has to be done), real time sharing of information means more brainpower and broader perspectives for problem solving. This is an obvious example of more heads are better than one.

Three facts make Rett Syndrome an attractive disease for gene therapy: it is monogenic; it is remarkably reversible in animal models; delivering MECP2 does not require understanding its function.

There are several hurdles to overcome. There is a requirement for MECP2 in every part of the brain so the gene will need to be broadly delivered. Also, the MECP2 Duplication Syndrome suggests that too much MECP2 is bad. It is difficult in gene therapy to regulate how many copies of a gene enter a cell and how much protein is made so the issue of MECP2 dosage must be carefully explored. We know that having too much MECP2 from conception and through early development causes serious symptoms. But does the same hold true if extra MECP2 is delivered later in life? Also, is it possible that females tolerate greater amounts of this protein than males? These questions must be answered before a clinical trial can be proposed.

consortium-03Consortium members are also working on the following key issues:

1) Vector optimization – The vector is the Trojan horse that delivers the gene into a cell. There are many types of vectors in use and many more under development. For Rett we need a vector that can get into the brain and spread efficiently throughout the organ. The delivery route will affect the vector of choice. For example, if you deliver intravenously (via the blood stream) there is concern that a large amount of vector will end up in the liver potentially causing toxicity. To get around this problem a vector that de-targets the liver would be very useful. If dosage of MECP2 turns out to be problematic vectors that can be turned off will be required.

2) MEPC2 optimization – There are limits to the amount of DNA that can be packaged into a vector. The entire MECP2 gene does not fit. Scientists therefore have to select the parts of the gene they think are the most important. In essence they need to design a “mini-MECP2 gene’. Similar “mini-gene” work is also underway in the lab of Adrian Bird and will be shared with the Consortium.

3) Delivery route optimization – Gene therapy can be delivered via the blood stream, intrathecally into the spinal cord (like an epidural), or directly to the brain. Each route has its own advantages and disadvantages.

4) Optimizing how much gene therapy to deliver – the scientists are delivering low, medium and high dosages in an attempt to see how much is needed to get a therapeutic effect without generating toxic side effects.

We thank our precious donors who make this critical research possible!

In Their Own Words

gail

It is very stimulating to be part of such a focused group of experts on gene therapy approaches towards Rett. The previous studies that we performed in collaboration with the Kaspar group were promising in showing that expression of a good copy of MeCP2, delivered systemically with AAV9, ameliorated Rett-like symptoms in female mice and prolonged survival significantly in affected males. Most surprisingly, but importantly, although we did not achieve a large amount of expression of the good MeCP2 in brains of the treated mice, we still saw behavioral benefits. We are now trying to improve the expression level of delivered MeCP2 by redesigning the vector, according to ideas and experimental results presented at the Consortium meetings. The openness of the investigators propels our studies and makes for a productive venture that would not be possible by any one individual laboratory. Additionally, it saves time because we can move on from doing obvious experiments that were done already in another laboratory. Finally, for those crucial experiments that had positive results, we have the ability to reproduce them in a different laboratory to insure that the results are solid.

– Gail Mandel

kasparThe Kaspar Laboratory is extremely excited about the potential to deliver gene therapies to the CNS.  We are encouraged with our delivery studies to target cells efficiently in the brain, where one requires the proper expression of MECP2.  Furthermore, our clinical trial in Spinal Muscular Atrophy has to date demonstrated the safety of this gene therapeutic in children which is excellent news for development of gene therapeutics in diseases, such as Rett.  As a laboratory, we have bolstered our Rett efforts and are making great progress in testing the safety and developing the pre-clinical data necessary for developing a treatment.  Our approach is building off the success of our collaboration with Dr. Gail Mandel. We are thankful for her continued support on our steep learning curve of Rett.  This Consortium allows us to learn from each other’s studies.  It’s a great group of scientists and I’m privileged to be a part of it.  I see the progress we are collectively making and the commitment to the development of a therapy for Rett patients.  The path is starting to look much clearer to get there.

– Brian Kaspar

cobbThe Cobb lab shares Brian’s excitement about the consortium’s efforts and the potential for gene therapy to counteract the root cause of Rett Syndrome. The project is progressing on multiple fronts from vector design/optimization to assessing best delivery methods and testing for efficacy and safety. Whilst the concept of gene therapy is a very simple one, the route to developing a safe and effective therapy is not at all straightforward. A key element of the consortium is that it enables us to share ideas and to discuss and act on emerging results from the four labs in real time. This will inevitably lead to more rapid progress in addressing the various challenges. As well as coordinating efforts, the consortium also enables us to cross validate key experiments to ensure findings are robust and reproducible across laboratories. After our Consortium meeting Kamal and I traveled to visit Steve Gray’s lab at UNC Chapel Hill. It was an extremely valuable few days as we were able to not only observe but also practice various delivery route methods. We also were able to compare and standardize how we score neurological features seen in the mice. Spending time together also provided an opportunity to further discuss vector development. Our trip to the US for both the Consortium meeting and visit to UNC was very productive.

– Stuart Cobb

grayOur efforts to treat Rett syndrome are built on 7 years of experience with the Rett community along with “bench to bedside” approaches that we are taking for six other inherited diseases. Our gene therapy clinical trial for Giant Axonal Neuropathy laid an important foundation for a similar approach to be taken with Rett syndrome. Gene therapy for Rett is an enormous challenge, but the last few years have garnered a great deal of excitement based on the similar positive findings published by all 4 laboratories in this consortium in 2 seminal papers. We are excited to be part of this group, and together we can accomplish much more than my lab alone. When Dr. Cobb visited our lab recently he provided critical expertise in a short visit that saved us an enormous amount of time and effort if we had been working alone. This is a small example of the many benefits we have had from working together in a collaborative fashion.

– Steve Gray

by Monica Coenraads

Chelsea is 18 years old today. It’s a milestone birthday that parents of special needs children face with mixed emotions. My heart is full with love and pride for the beautiful, emotive, tender yet determined young woman that Chelsea has become. But today I am also mourning. Mourning for a childhood never lived and forever lost.

Chelsea beach

When Chelsea was a toddler I made her a promise – that I would do everything in my power to heal her. With little science background, zero drug development knowledge and no fundraising experience I did not appreciate the enormity of my promise. Ignorance, at times, can be a blessing.

The Rett research landscape in the year Chelsea was diagnosed, 1998, was dismal. The disorder was practically unknown in medical and scientific circles, there was no known gene and therefore no diagnostic blood test, there were no animal models, and there was little research beyond trying to pinpoint the genetic cause.

My conviction that treatments and a cure for Rett were possible came from both visceral intuition and a mother’s love. Today that conviction is based on science.

But when will that cure come? Is it really “around the corner” as I so often read on facebook and other social media? I do not know the timeframe associated with “around the corner” (is it weeks, months, years?) but I am confident that a number of treatments will become available to our children in the coming years that will improve certain symptoms. The Potential Rett Syndrome Therapeutics chart on the RSRT website provides insight into the numerous interventions currently being pursued.

As parents we will take any improvement in our children’s symptoms that we can get. But what about the “like it never even happened” cure? (My all-time favorite catchphrase from the disaster restoration company, SERVPRO) For now we do not know whether the cure will be gene therapy, or protein replacement or activating the silent MECP2 (or the entire X chromosome) or a drug that modulates a modifier gene or perhaps a combination of some or all of these approaches. And we don’t know what a cure for someone like my daughter, who is now an adult, will look like. Will she be able to speak, to walk, to use her hands?

I do not focus on these questions because they are, for now, unanswerable. I concentrate only on the facts and these include:

  • The reversal experiments originally done in Adrian Bird’s lab and repeated over and over again in many labs gives us solid proof-of-principle that dramatic reversal of symptoms should be possible. I have yet to hear one piece of scientific data that would dampen my optimism that a cure is possible.
  • Scientists are making progress on many fronts including gene therapy.
  • Rett researchers are collaborating and sharing information in real-time in a way that is unprecedented. Examples include the MECP2 Consortium, the Gene Therapy Consortium, and researchers focused on reactivating the silent MECP2.
  • Technologies exist today that are enabling experiments that only a few years ago would be impossible.
  • Rett has become a high-profile disorder in scientific circles.
  • Biotech and big pharma, for the first time, are showing an interest in Rett Syndrome.
  • Science is not linear. We do not know what might lie around the corner that can dramatically accelerate the development of a cure.

Those of you who know me will know that I am aggressive when it comes to pushing the science forward but I am conservative in how research progress is relayed to families. I prefer facts over hype.

Could a cure for Rett be around the corner?  The answer to that question will come when we have a clearer picture of what form that cure will take.  I can assure you that I will not rest until we accomplish that.

Love alone cannot cure Rett but love and research will. It’s been 16 years and I am more than ready to deliver on my promise.