- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Slowed Promise of Gene Therapy
Hopes soared for cures to diseases like cystic fibrosis. What happened?
[Editor's note: This is the first of a three-part series looking at detours and advances in gene-based medicine.]
The genetics of Margaret Benson's lungs don't match anything else in her body, which is why she is still breathing. Margaret had a double lung transplant. Her first pair of lungs were choked and scarred by cystic fibrosis and seven years ago they quit.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetic disease that hits the lungs the hardest. Respiratory failure is the primary cause of death. When the gene responsible was found in 1989, "suddenly there was hope," recalls Margaret. "For the families coming up, what an incredible gift for them, that maybe in their children's lifetime a cure will be found". The focus of all that hope rested on gene therapy.
Gene therapy is being developed for cancer, heart disease, and many of other conditions based on genetics. But to use the word "therapy" to describe it is a bit premature. To date there is only one clinical application that is truly a gene therapy. It is a treatment for a type of throat cancer that has only been approved for use in China.
There is no gene therapy approved for cystic fibrosis, and there is no cure even though the disease was thought to be an ideal candidate for one. The high hopes for gene therapy that peaked in the 1990s have dwindled. Developing gene therapy that works is much harder than people thought, and the story of the struggle for a cystic fibrosis gene therapy illustrates why.
What is gene therapy?
"Gene therapy is using genetic material to correct a disease or to reverse the clinical course of a disease," explains Dr. Jim Hu, a senior scientist and one of the top cystic fibrosis researchers in Canada who specializes in gene therapy at Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto.
Genetic material, usually DNA, directs the construction of everything biological. In genetic disease, changes in genetic material result in shoddy construction or sometimes no construction at all.
Gene therapy can fix genetic disease by providing directions that build biological machinery that works. This is done by putting normal copies of the gene into cells, repairing malfunctioning genes, or changing the activity of genes by getting them to work harder or work less.
If it works, gene therapy would have a big advantage over drugs because it can fix everything at once. One gene has many different functions. "We don't know which of those functions it would be the most important to mimic," explains Dr. Eric Alton, head of the UK Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium. "The only way to be certain of replicating the normal function is to put in a normal copy of the gene, which would therefore replicate all of the different functions."
How cystic fibrosis kills
Cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in a single gene, which makes it a bit of an oddity. Most diseases with a large genetic component have many different genes that are involved, which makes figuring them out even more difficult. Since CF has only one gene involved, it was thought to be a prime candidate for gene therapy.
The gene found was the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene (CFTR). When CFTR works properly, it makes a structure in the cell that moves chloride particles in and out. Although it doesn't sound like a very big job, chloride particles have an electrical charge. How they enter and leave the cell changes electrical signals that regulate many cellular functions.
In cystic fibrosis, a chloride traffic jam causes the cells that line most of our inner workings to produce mucus that is too thick and clogs things up. This can lead to dire consequences in the lungs.
The thick mucus produced in cystic fibrosis doesn't move well. Airways get blocked up and infections are a constant problem because bacteria trapped by the mucus are not removed. Constant inflammation and damage to the lung eventually results in respiratory failure.
In the digestive system, tubes that pipe in digestive juices to the intestine can get clogged. This causes people with CF to not digest their food well, which can lead to diabetes and osteoporosis. Even reproductive tubes can be blocked up, which leads to infertility in men.
Everyone has two copies of CFTR, and you can have one mutated copy of the gene and still be healthy. However, when two people with only one working CFTR gene have children, there is a one in four chance that the child will have both of their CFTR genes mutated and be born with cystic fibrosis.
Wrong timeline
"They said at the time it will be within five years that a cure will be found, that's what I remember hearing," says Margaret, remembering the excitement in the cystic fibrosis community back in 1989. As the years passed by and children died, Margaret remembers how the hope and elation in the CF community "slowly trickled down to, when are they going to find it?"
There were plenty of people, families and doctors, who wanted a cure fast. One year after the genetic discovery, the CFTR mutation was successfully fixed in cells grown in a lab. Based on that work, Dr. Robert Beall, the vice president and medical director of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, predicted that there would be a gene therapy cure for CF within the decade.
Dr. Barbara Nakielna is one of Margaret's doctors and the head of the cystic fibrosis adult clinic at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. She remembers hearing Dr. Beall's prediction at a cystic fibrosis conference in the early 1990's. "I was excited," recalls Dr. Nakielna, "maybe not quite as confident as Robert Beall was, but certainly optimistic."
Now, many years later, Dr. Nakielna's optimism has run out.
"I certainly won't throw my hands up and say it's a hopeless cause, but I don't think that in this particular disease that it's necessarily the right way to go because we've been at it for long enough".
Genetic beginnings
"We knew it wasn't going to be five years," recalls Dr. Johanna Rommens, one of the geneticists that was part of the Toronto team that discovered the gene for cystic fibrosis. "We had found a gene that nobody had every studied before, we didn't know what it did."
Knowing the gene doesn't tell you how to fix anything, it just tells you where to start. First you have to figure out how the normal gene works and how the mutations change things. Then there is a large web of biological processes that domino off from that change.
The first clinical trials used modified viruses to deliver the normal CFTR gene since viruses have machinery designed to get genetic material into cells. The body and engine of the virus stayed the same, but the genetics were altered so that they didn't hijack the cell and replicate like viruses normally do. Most of the viral genes were also taken out and switched with the normal CFTR gene. But all the early gene therapy trials failed, the biology was much more complicated than anticipated.
"Initially people didn't anticipate all the problems," says Dr. Hu. "All the early clinical trials were doomed to fail."
The first obstacle was mucus. Even in a normal lung, getting past the mucus to the cells that need the gene is difficult. But the residual viral genes that were included with the CFTR to help with delivery caused the most problems. Even if they were there to help, the body still recognized them as viral and attacked. The machinery needed for gene delivery was shut down and more inflammation flared up in addition to the damaging inflammation that cystic fibrosis already caused.
In the end, the amounts of normal CFTR gene getting in and working were not enough to make a difference. Non-viral delivery systems have also been tried that bypass most of the inflammation issues caused by viral shuttles, but have still not worked effectively in humans.
However science advances with failure as well as success. Even though the progress since the gene discovery in 1989 might be perceived as slow, some would say that everything is well on schedule.
Making progress
"We're well on course and well on time for the normal production of moving from bench to bedside," says Dr. Alton. His group, the UK Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium, has been working on optimising gene therapy for cystic fibrosis since 2001.
Dr. Alton points out that in the pharmaceutical industry, the normal development of a drug from start to final product usually takes 20 years, and gene therapy is newer and more involved.
"It's a difficult thing to do to put a gene into a lung cell," says Alton. "Evolution has designed the lung to keep things out and we're trying to work against evolution."
The consortium has been focusing on optimising current non-viral gene delivery methods. Soon they will start a large clinical trial with a gene delivery system that carries genes in microscopic capsules built from the building blocks of fat molecules (see tomorrow's article).
However, getting the normal CFTR genes into the cells that are constantly dying and being replaced is not very efficient. The therapy would have to be given repeatedly, and that may not always be feasible, as was the case with the first viral shuttles that caused inflammation.
"What you really need is the baby cells, or the stem cells," says Dr. Rommens.
Stem cells are the ideal target for gene therapy. They are easier to put genes into and the effect would be longer because they don't die off, they make more cells. But the research on stem cells is in its infancy. How to get enough stem cells for a therapy, or get them into the lung to repair it, are still not worked out.
Sobering lessons
The slower than hoped for progress of a gene therapy cure for cystic fibrosis offers some lessons for why similar cures for other diseases have yet to materialize. Scientists have learned that getting a genetic treatment to cells that need it is much more difficult than figuring out a genetic fix to a single gene disease. In other words, gene therapy is much easier in theory than in practise.
But research in gene therapy delivery systems is progressing rapidly, and once it gets sorted out, medicine will final have the engine it needs to move us into the genetic revolution that was promised.
None of the current gene therapies in development for cystic fibrosis would help Margaret since her new lungs are free of CF. But she still struggles with problems in her other organs and the anti-rejection drugs she takes because of the transplant.
Even though she still lives with cystic fibrosis, and has to be very mindful of her health, Margaret doesn't look or act sick. The girl that the doctors didn't think would see 20, now a very active 48-year-old and fiercely proud of her age.
"I'll stand on the rooftops and tell people how old I am, especially for the kids coming up," says Margaret. With or without gene therapy, there is hope. More and more people with cystic fibrosis are living well into adulthood, "and that's what kids need to hear."
Tomorrow: A new way to deliver gene medicine to tumours? ![]()




6
Login or register to post comments
Booker
4 years ago
Thanks
A well-written article and I look forward to the rest of the series. I hope the Tyee does more publishing on science topics.
alda
4 years ago
Barking up the wrong tree
While I'm not opposed to stem cell and genetic research to find out the "why" of diseases, I wouldn't look to them for cures in this century. Those who expect miracles from cold science are barking up the wrong tree, imo, as there is not - and probably will never be - a panacea of pills for chronic illnesses. Of course, the pharmaceutical corporations that fund them need to convince the public otherwise. Uh-huh. Just follow the money.
Hippocrates said, "You are what you eat," yet, modern day doctors seem to have little understanding of that simple concept and certainly don't place enough emphasis on nutrition and vitamin supplementation. The corporate owned press has done a fine and shameful job of disparaging the naturopathic/holistic industry by labeling those who practice it, "quacks." (The history of that terminology and how that happened,is by the way, fascinating.) The average doctor in Canada has received something like only 4 hours of nutritional training in medical school. What do they know? More importantly, what DON'T they know?
Yes, no doubt genes predispose one to certain illnesses, but in as much as to what we can pragmatically do to help our health, as with a car, what the human organism puts in its digestic tract is what fuels its body. Put junk in the gas tank and see how your car runs. Likewise, feeding chemical/toxic junk and foods the body is allergic to (yes, from heredity/genetic predisposition) and the result is a weakened and/or diseased organism. This includes babies who are often fed milk proteins, grains, and foods they're actually allergic to.
There are a few interesting websites out there for people interested in holistic treatments for chronic diseases, such as the GFCF Diet (gluten-free, casein-free) for children with autism, ocd, and tourettes, and MS Direct - a Calgary website by the way (for the treatment of multiple sclerosis), and for CF: http://curezone.com/dis/1.asp?C0=105
At the very least, they're worth a look.
James Burns
4 years ago
It might not be a tree it might be the dog
Well the discovery of vitamins was due to "cold science". I'd like to remind the disparager's that science is a methodology, a process for investigating reality. What is done with that knowledge is infinitely variable. People often mistake the application of scientific knowledge with the process of science. In our present time knowledge is usually directed toward realizing monetary profit. Profit and human health don't always run in the same direction.
As for allergies there is slowly building evidence that allergies are due to too much cleanliness which causes problems with our immune system, but the mechanism by which this triggers an over aggressive immune response in people is still not understood. So the kinds of toxicity you describe alda may well prove to not really be the problem. What is clear is that our biggest problem in wealthy countries is overconsumption of nutritionally deficient foods. That is the biggest threat to our health, not toxins or allergies.
alda
4 years ago
too much cleanliness
James,
Your first paragraph point is well taken, as is the point in your second that wealthy countries consume nutritionally deficient food. Thx.
However, I have to point out that the "too much cleanliness as the cause of allegies" argument is considered to be a laughable one by most in the holistic community - an argument promoted by corporations to avoid discussion of one of the real causes of allergies. If kids become agressively allergic to a house that's "too clean," you can bet it's not the ABSENCE of germs (they're everywhere, anyway), but that they can't tolerate the varnishes, paints, hazardous and toxic cleansers being used in schools and households and buildings everywhere.
But back to my original contention. First of all, certain food allergies HAVE been proven to be, yes, genetically hereditary (for example, if you read the Italian researchers paper on MS in the MS Direct website - it's quite fascinating - you'll see that they've done studies proving that Scandinavians, Scottish, and Italians have a predisposition towards MS - a genetic "fault" that makes them intolerant towards certain proteins: nuts, legumes, beef, some grains, etc.; also, for example, an extremely high percentage of people of African descent are lactose (milk) intolerant, etc. This is indisputable scientific fact, and avoidance of these offending foods is considered by many naturopaths to be the most important part of a treatment regime (Anecdotal evidence: it has definitely worked for my allergy symptoms).
But, in recent years, more and more people are proving to be allergic to foods that have been treated with pesticides and/or processed with chemicals. The human body, in its wisdom, rejects those harmful and toxic substances via inflammation and "allergy." What this tells us that our foods should be grown organically and naturally produced without artifical ingredients and pesticides. (Foods grown organically, by the way, are what are known in the organic community as "clean food." What most people consume now, therefore, is the antithesis of "clean.")
Inflammation as a by-product of allergy has also been proven to affect other chronic illnesses as well (arthritis, fibro-myalgia,etc.). Like a donated kidney or foreign tissue, chemical substances are often rejected by the body. It rejects what it cannot tolerate, recognize, or is biologically meant to consume or have contact with. We wouldn't feed our pets half the garbage we let our kids eat...
Imo, looking only to science (as interesting as it is)to come up with complex and often bogus solutions when common sense, age-old proven treatments can often work, is a huge drain on the medical system.
James Burns
4 years ago
If the science fits
Alda, part of the problem with genes is that they are not destiny, at least not entirely. Science has found that genes can be turned off or on by environmental factors. The lack of certain stimuli in the environment (like a lack of nutrition and possibly a lack of exposure to immune system stimulants like certain viruses) will result in a different expression of genes in people.
There is scientific EVIDENCE that suggests being too clean IS a problem. You cited Italian papers, well there a number of scientific peer reviewed studies that have come out in from Italy and the US that support the hygiene hypothesis. The holistic community may not like the idea that all the varnishes, and chemical pollutants may not be the primary cause of allergies (although I wouldn't be surprised if some can affect gene expression, as some pollutants can certainly cause genetic damage leading to cancers).
Here is a link to wikipedia, it contains references to other sources and if you do a net search you can find abstracts of actual scientific studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis
Inflammation is a natural and important part of the immune response. It's just when inflammation overreacts or reacts to the wrong things that it can become a real problem. An allergy is your immune system reacting to something normally innocuous you have been exposed to as a threat.
alda
4 years ago
response
I think we're agreeing... sort of...
It's just that I don't think mucking with wayward genes via pharmaceuticals will ever be the way to "turn them off," but rather, the solutions will be found in eliminating the allergens that cause the genes to run amuck - those allergens mainly being food proteins and chemical additives, but also mercury in fillings, and other toxins, etc.