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."
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Thu, 06/30/2016 - 12:04
Kari Stefansson is a name well known in the field of human genetics. His founding of deCODE genetics in his native Iceland in 1996 took our field into a new frontier with the unique opportunity to work with not only a homogenous population but also to integrate with a large centralized healthcare database. It also surfaced a huge ethical debate about genomic privacy.
We’re very happy to welcome Kari to the program for the first time to talk about his vision for deCODE now that the company has been bought by Amgen. The company has continued to publish papers revealing major findings of rare variants associated with common diseases. Just last month Kari and deCODE published a paper in the NEJM with the discovery of a gene called ASGR1. The gene lowers the risk of heart disease by a substantial 34%.
Kari is passionate about discovery for the sake of discovery.
“All life on earth is rooted in information that lies in the simple code of As and Gs and Cs and Ts of DNA,” he reminds us. “Some of our discoveries are knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It is man studying man.”
But he also points out that as soon as they made the discovery of the ASGR1 heart-protective gene, researchers at Amgen went to work immediately on a drug discovery program. And, he says, he knows that many other pharma companies have already begun similar programs.
deCODE is perhaps best known though for their project to create a genomic database unlike any in the world. And for the ethical issues this has brought up. Last year deCODE announced that they had sequenced enough individuals to impute the genomes for the entire population of Iceland. This could lead to a new kind of preventative healthcare system that would be a model for other countries everywhere. It’s also left Kari and his colleagues scratching their heads over whether, for example, they have a social obligation to find out who in Iceland carries the dangerous BRCA mutations.
He shares some dramatic statistics that reveal their dilemma:
"Women who carry this mutation have 86% probability of developing a lethal cancer. They have 72% probability of developing breast cancer. They have a life expectancy that is twelve years shorter than non-carriers. They are three times more likely to die before the age of 70 than the non-carriers. And most of this risk could be mitigated by preventative surgery, for example.”
The interview goes well over our typical target of 20 minutes. But Kari is a deliberate thinker and an eloquent speaker. Enjoy.
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Fri, 06/24/2016 - 10:27
You hear it everywhere. And it’s getting old. That "diagnostics is a tough slog.” That it’s the “redheaded stepchild of healthcare.”
And today’s guest doesn’t disappoint, repeating both these phrases. But Brad Gray and NanoString can claim some big “slogging" success. They’re coming out on top in diagnostics through some clever business strategy built on a solid platform. Made CEO at just 33 years of age, Brad has taken NanoString public and overseen a successful expansion from the research to the clinical market.
In his interview, you’ll hear Brad lay out the three pronged approach at NanoString. Starting as a spinout from Lee Hood’s Institute for Systems Biology, the company began in the life science tools space with their nCounter platform. The machine proved a favorite for cancer researchers because of its ability to look at single molecules of nucleic acid. When the company pole-vaulted into the clinical space, rather than set up their own lab and do the testing themselves--such as diagnostics pioneers, Myriad Genetics and Genomic Health--NanoString opted for a decentralized model. They did just the kind of thing that makes the FDA happy. They created a “push button simple” platform with kits so that clinical labs could do the testing themselves in a highly reproducible fashion.
But that’s not all. Under Brad’s leadership, the company has made several major companion diagnostics deals with big pharma. An agreement with Merck announced earlier this year delivered NanoString an upfront payment of $12 million. That’s a nice boost for a diagnostics company slogging away at reimbursement.
“The Merck deal is especially exciting because it’s the first major molecular diagnostics partnership in the field of immuno-oncology,” says Brad. "And the scale of it makes it the largest companion diagnostics deal ever announced, in economic terms.”
And what of the reimbursement slog for theirs flagship Prosigna breast cancer assay? NanoString can now boast Medicare coverage in all 50 states.
Submitted by Ayanna Monteverdi on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 22:46
Last year when we were promised a soon-to-be-on-the-market, pan cancer, genetic based screening test, many of us were taken aback at the hubris. Not only does the science have a ways to go, there are deep ethical conflicts to work through. However, cancer screening based on a patient’s genetics is already being done in certain niche areas.
Josh Schiffman is a cancer researcher at the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah. He’s also a pediatric oncologist serving as the Medical Director of the Institute’s High Risk Pediatric Cancer Clinic. At the clinic, Josh and his colleagues put out a study where they demonstrated that early cancer surveillance in patients who have a rare disease called Li-Fraumeni Syndrome can dramatically increase overall survival.
Why Li-Fraumeni Syndrome? It turns out that patients from families with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome have only one working copy of the P53 gene, a well known protective mutation for cancer. Because of this genetic predisposition to cancer, these patients were screened early with whole body MRIs and other blood tests. For the study, patients whose tumors were found due to the early cancer screening were compared to those patients whose cancer was diagnosed because they presented with symptoms. The overall survival rate for those screened early was 100 percent compared to just 20 percent in the later group.
Should Josh’s work with this sub-population translate out to doing cancer screening for all based on known high risk cancer mutations? Josh says let’s do the study. As for the ethical concerns, he feels the landscape of cancer genetics has shifted.
“Many years ago we didn’t offer P53 screening to children, because there was nothing you could do about it,” he says in today’s interview. "But now that we’ve come a far way and technology has improved, if there is something we can do about it, then it makes more sense to do the test. So we believe very strongly that all children at increased risk [for cancer] should be tested."