Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Thu, 06/01/2017 - 09:38
Is Grail already merging? Genomic autopsies? Does the House's new healthcare bill turn mere genetic risk into pre-conditions? Nathan and Laura are back to find meaning in the rush of May's headlines.
Laura cites a disturbing survey of over 2,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer that found half of them had unnecessary double mastectomies after genetic testing. She says unabashedly, “In big letters, it’s an ADVERTSIMENT FOR GENETIC COUNSELING.”
Speaking of alarms, Nathan says attorney Joel Winston’s blog against Ancestry.com’s terms and conditions was fear mongering.
We end with comments on the passing of one of the creators of the orphan drug industry, Henri Termeer.
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Mon, 05/01/2017 - 09:25
For genomics nerds, April 2017 will be remembered as the date when the FDA adopted a more open policy towards 23andMe and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. What does this decision mean, and just where is the FDA drawing the line? A genetic counselor herself, Laura found the decision “head turning.”
“There’s lots of reasons why some genetic counselors are not going to be thrilled to deal with everyone’s 23andMe results,” she says.
For the “cool new studies” section of today’s show, Laura is excited about a research project announced by Grail, a spinoff from Illumina working on a pan cancer screening test. And Nathan points out that the trend for researchers to look back at ancient DNA sharpened this month with two new studies that not only open up the possibilities for historians and archeologists but also have relevance to human health longterm.
“We’re getting much better at doing it,” he says. “So look for more of this ancient meta genomics where we can find little fragments of DNA outside of cells but intact in sites like soil. They’re very diverse, but we're starting to figure out really what was going on at a place some time in the past."
We finish with a couple stories that are giving pause to researchers working on gene therapy and immunotherapy.
It’s commentators Nathan Pearson and Laura Hercher joining Theral to talk genomics for April.
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Thu, 04/13/2017 - 10:58
Rubbing shoulders at molecular medicine conferences these days one senses a sigh of relief when you talk about laboratory developed tests (LDTs). With the FDA’s decision to put regulation on hold coupled with the expected confirmation of Scott Gottlieb as FDA commissioner, those in the lab testing business seem to be confidently settling back to the status quo. And those who were arguing that all we need is a “beefed up” CLIA to hold labs to better testing standards don’t appear to be motivated to do so anymore.
Several questions arise when it comes to LDTs. First of all, if regulation was truly important for enabling this revolution we call precision medicine, then why couldn’t the Obama administration get it issued? In other words, is the status quo so bad? Secondly, without the FDA even threatening to regulate, will we see the “beefed up” CLIA that many labs argued is the best way forward? Without the stick of the FDA, is the carrot gone too?
Russell Garlick is the CSO of SeraCare, a private company that has worked to improve clinical laboratory standards for over thirty years. The company recently added a new business unit for precision medicine diagnostics, and Russell was brave enough to come on today and address these questions.
As for the status quo being good enough, Russell isn't happy.
“Many of the organizations undertaking clinical trials to recruit oncology patients have lost confidence because LDTs in one geography of the United States don’t perform the same as in other parts of the United States,” he says.
Russell has worked many years with labs on IVDs--the already regulated group of diagnostic tests. He sounds disappointed that the FDA has dropped their focus on LDTs, but is hopeful that existing organizations, such as the College of American Pathologists, or even private companies such as SeraCare might step in and seize an opportunity to improve things.
“There’s a lot of status quo. And frankly it’s a little bit disappointing,” he says, “because the laboratories can benefit from [improved standards]. It’s that inertia to do something new and different."
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Sun, 02/19/2017 - 20:01
First of all, watch the video below.
A Santa Cruz company is now previewing a nanopore device that could be a major disruptor in molecular testing. The device is the size of a glucometer and could take all kinds of testing—perhaps someday even cancer-tracking liquid biopsies—into the home with its ease of use and ability to work with thousands of different assays.
Two Pore Guys, named for the pores not the guys, is a spinout from UC Santa Cruz and one of a growing biotech community on the west side of Santa Cruz, CA. The company has yet to do beta testing and is focused now on scaling up manufacturing of the small, relatively simple devices. CEO, Dan Heller, says Two Pore Guys has no plans to develop their own tests but will stay focused on the platform.
“We could make ten or fifteen assays and go to market with them, but why not let others make thousands and thousands of assays?” Dan asks. "They’ve already spent billions of dollars and decades developing primers or capture molecules for antibodies. Why not just give it a new life and let them sell it into the market? It's a revenue share."
So what tools might this replace? Dan lists the standard lab machines for PCR, HPLC, and mass spec. “There’s many uses of existing lab equipment that could be done on our device more quickly, cheaply, easily,” says Dan.
Based on recently developed nanopore technology, the small device looks remarkably straight forward. A molecule—just about any molecule-- is pulled through a nanopore by an electric current. The impedance of the current is the measure of the molecule. Though the device does not currently sequence DNA, its possibilities to replace other large life science tools does seem all the more real in a time when Oxford Nanopore’s small sequencing devices--also partly developed at UCSC—are proving themselves powerful tools.
Listening to Dan, the broad range of molecules and applications becomes dizzying: diagnostic testing such as liquid biopsy tests for cancer (the company is currently doing a study with UC San Francisco for a KRAS liquid biopsy test), infectious disease, border security, agriculture, animal health, and environmental testing.
It leaves us with this question in the end: why was this not done before?
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Tue, 12/06/2016 - 10:20
Back in 2009 at the annual AGBT meeting for sequencing, Marco Marra presented one of the first cases of cancer treatment using whole genome sequencing.
We caught up with Marco at his office at the University of British Columbia where he heads the Department of Medical Genetics. Marco also directs the Genome Sciences Center which is part of a very special organization called the BC Cancer Agency.
In 2012 Marco and his team began a pilot project at the agency to scale up their work from just a one off case to more routine treatment. While doing whole genome and whole transcriptome testing is not yet “standard of care” for cancer patients, the scientists and researchers at the agency have the opportunity to sit down with oncologists on a weekly basis and explore its use with several patients at a time.
What are the major questions and challenges Marco has encountered in scaling? How is the regulatory environment for genomic testing in Canada? And which camp does Marco adhere to when it comes to whole genome sequencing: quantity or quality?
Join us as we talk to the number two cited scientist in all of Canada.
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Mon, 11/14/2016 - 18:53
Let’s take a break from the US and head over to the UK, home of the world’s largest single disease medical research charity.
Cancer Research UK (CRUK) raises five hundred million pounds a year for research and drug discovery into any and all of the two hundred plus types of cancer. The charity is extremely well integrated into U.K. culture, and uniquely English in that the donations are mostly small and come from all corners of society. A third of CRUK’s funding comes from donations averaging £10 or less.
Allan Jordan is head of chemistry for the drug discovery unit of CRUK. On today’s show he says that the democratic funding of the charity gives them a great deal of flexibility to do early stage drug discovery. Whereas a big pharma or biotech has to devote their resources to limited assets, or drugs, CRUK is able to spend more on basic biology research and follow the science into any type or cancer or multiple cancers.
There are very few conditions,” says Allan about his drug discovery unit in Manchester. "We don’t have to be specific about any particular disease area; we don’t have to be experts in one disease at the expense of all others. We can tap into that UK-wide expertise and network that can help us understand the biology.”
How is the charity working with the UK's national healthcare system? And does Allan hear the same kind of skepticism that we hear in the U.S. about precision medicine in oncology?
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Thu, 09/22/2016 - 13:40
Most of the time, when we talk about personalized medicine, it’s not that personalized. What we’re really talking about is population-based medicine. However, there is a growing number of clinical/research groups around the world, including the folks at the Finnish Institute for Molecular Medicine (FIMM) who are combining an older method of functional profiling with new molecular profiling to come up with what the Fins call 'Individualized Systems Medicine.'
Krister Wennerberg joins us today from FIMM where he is the leader of the Cancer Chemical Systems Biology Group. He says that traditionally in our industry there has been two factions: one that has been focused on molecular profiling— which, he says, is leading today—and another group which is focused on functionalized testing, or seeing how the individual cancer cells respond to drugs through ex-vivo screening. This second approach has been around for some time but hasn’t been that successful. These two factions have been somewhat opposing each other.
“I don’t think that’s the way to think about it,” says Krister. "We really need to merge these together, and that’s how we’re really going to make advances. We need to start with the functional responses, and then try to lead back to what are the molecular drivers of this response."
Part of the special approach at FIMM is to use a new, more precise method of liquid handling for their screening which gives them greater quality control and the ability to make the most of each sample.
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Tue, 09/20/2016 - 10:07
The history of science is also a history of toolmaking. And nowhere is this more true than in modern biology. New instruments in the lab allow biologists additional modes of discovery, new levels of quantification, and the opportunity to pursue new and old questions with more data.
David Polsky is a dermatologist and researcher at NYU’s Langone Medical Center. Last week he received a grant from the NCI for readying a new liquid biopsy test that tracks the progression of melanoma for the clinic. Until now, there has been no blood based marker that was able to track melanoma as there is with other cancers such as prostate cancer and the PSA (prostate specific antigen) score. This new test, which could be a major breakthrough for the treatment of melanoma, targets seven mutations which occur in 70% of melanoma patients. These mutations are found in cell free, circulating tumor DNA.
In today’s interview, David points out that the test is possible only with the advent of digital PCR and its ability to measure DNA more with absolute quantification and sensitivity. We knew these mutations before, but just couldn't measure them.
“Droplet digital PCR has been a major breakthrough in our ability to detect rare events and also to quantitate them with accuracy and precision. Those two features are absolutely critical,” says David.
David and his group have been collaborating on the test with Bio-Rad, who makes the ddPCR instruments and designed these tests, and with Molecular MD. Clinical trials with Bristol-Meyers Squibb are expected. Now, with the preliminary science published, the NCI grant will go towards developing analytical and clinical validation so that the test might be commercially available for patients soon.
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Wed, 08/31/2016 - 21:16
It’s the end of summer and end of another month. Joining us to discuss the genomics headlines of August are Laura Hercher and Nathan Pearson.
A recent study demonstrating that breast cancer patients with low genomic risk may not need chemotherapy is just what precision medicine is all about, isn’t it? Theral and Laura think the study is a big deal. Nathan’s not so sure.
Nathan is convinced though that Eurocentric studies have implicit racism. Laura agrees, saying the lack of racial diversity in biological databases is a major weakness that we must face head on.
Also, the FDA issued a report supporting Oxitec’s GM mosquitos for use in Florida. Laura is on board with the science but warns about smugness on the part of the scientific community. And George Church’s lab released a reengineered e. coli. Nathan imagines a new genomic language of 2 letter codons.
It turns out, in many respects it is. Syapse has had some big wins with some of the more progressive healthcare companies in the U.S., including Intermountain and Stanford. This year Syapse announced the creation of the Oncology Precision Network for data sharing in cancer care among several major institutions. The company even got a shout out from Vice President Biden in one of the recent White House confabs.
Over the years we’ve featured various bioinformatics and clinical informatics companies who had the aim of bringing omics data to the clinic. Syapse is emerging as a leader in that field demonstrating strong traction, particularly in cancer care. Today Jonathan explains the company’s Precision Medicine Platform, on top of which sits their oncology application. He gives an example of just how this platform is changing cancer care at Intermountain in St. George, Utah, a small town with some big expertise.
And has the Veep’s Cancer Moonshot been changing things up?
“Everyone focuses on the money, but it’s not about the money,” Jonathan says. "It’s about how you use the power of the presidency to knock heads together and bring people together in collaborative relationships that they might otherwise not have entered. We’ve seen a measurable change in attitudes around clinical data sharing from this initiative."