Crossing the Ts in diabetes

Advances in cancer immunotherapy may help autoimmune therapies defend themselves.

allogeneic label

Is human immunology basically too crazy complex for the human mind? Evidence to date suggests yes, at least for my mind.

In almost every story I write about cancer immunology or autoimmune disease, I learn about previously unknown (to me) functions within the three-ring circus of immune cells. Or I find out about yet more types of these cells, like double-negative T cells, which can defend against graft disease and maybe type 1 diabetes. Who knew?

Well, yeah, thousands of immunologists.

All of us who follow cancer research, though, do know a (simplified) version of one genuine breakthrough in immunology, checkpoint blockade inhibitors, which garnered Nobel Prizes last October.

These drugs take on one of deepest questions in cancer biology: why the immune system doesn’t snuff out cancer cells, which by definition are genetically abnormal, often wildly abnormal.

Checkpoint blockades can hold off the T cells on patrol for just such outsiders. It turns out that a protein on the surface of tumor cells called PD-L1 can grab onto a surface protein on the T cell called PD-1 and so disarm the T cell. (Nothing to look at here, officer! Ignore my multiple heads and antitank guns!)

Other headlines in cancer immunotherapy come from chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell drugs, treating patients with certain blood cancers in which B cells go bad. The two such drugs with FDA approval work by taking T cells from the patients, reengineering the T cells to attack those cancerous B cells, and reinserting the T cells.

This method is often effective when nothing else works, but is always worryingly slow and extremely costly.

So there’s plenty of work in labs, and a few clinics, to take a logical but intimidating next step: Engineering off-the shelf T cells to do the job, hiding them from each patient’s immune system with tricks learned from checkpoint blockade research and similar  immunology findings.

Still with me?

Okay, if those cell-shielding techniques eventually work, can a similar attack be made in autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes?

In type 1 diabetes, effective ways to stop the autoimmune attacks from trigger-happy T cells exist only in lab mice. And that’s a problem not just in slowing or stopping disease progression but in trying to treat it. The most promising current approach is to encapsulate insulin-producing beta cells. This has been pursued for many decades, with many barriers. Perhaps the highest (if least surprising) barrier is that the capsules always get clogged up.

The latest capsule approaches, starting with beta cells made by reprogramming cells, try sophisticated material-science strategies to blunt this attack and may do much better.

But as long as we’re already playing genetic games with those engineered beta cells, why not also try  immune-evading tricks similar to those being studied in CAR-T experiments?

That’s the basic idea behind efforts by Altheascience, a Viacyte/CRISPR Therapeutics collaboration, and others. Which just maybe will produce capsules that, replaced every year or so as necessary, are working cures for type 1 diabetes. Which we would all fully understand.

Capping off

sphere_scarringAn MIT alginate microcapsule holding islet cells (in green) and being covered by immune cells (in blue and magenta). Image credit: Omid Veiseh, Joshua Doloff, Minglin Ma and Arturo Vegas.

There’s a worldwide deficit in insulin-producing beta cells, for people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, Harvard’s Doug Melton told a session at the ADA annual scientific conference on Friday.

“It’s a completely non-trivial thing that you can now make billions of human beta cells,” he said. “We spent more than a decade trying to march these cells through this procedure.”

Currently, it takes his lab about 40 days to produce the cells at a cost of about $6,000 per flask, but Melton is confident that these numbers can be chopped down.

The achievement required not only brilliant scientific detective legwork, especially on the last steps of differentiation, but lab drudgework on a dramatic scale.

Picking apart the steps that drive cells into beta shape, “we had to sort out three or four factors at a time,” he noted. The lab ran screens of small molecules to find what combinations were effective. Testing eight small molecules, in three concentrations, for different periods, in triplicate meant about 65,000 combinations to examine per screen.

The lab of MIT bioengineer Dan Anderson, collaborating with Melton to build microcapsules for the beta cells, took high-volume testing to a much higher level for various capsule designs.

Over the decades, many groups have tried to encapsulate beta cells in tiny spheres of alginate. Historically, “all these capsules end up covered in scar tissue,” Anderson told the ADA session.

But after endlessly tweaking the properties of these spheres, “we have a growing list of materials we could use,” he said.

One capsule material seems to work well in mice with strong immune systems—and in very early testing in macaques. Details on the material aren’t yet public, but the secret isn’t in the material’s permeability but in how the immune system reacts to it, Anderson said.

His group’s exhaustive testing also gave clues to how capsule size affects immune scarring. Last month, he and colleagues reported in Nature Materials that 1.5-mm-diameter capsules do better than 0.5-mm structures. Was that a surprise? “It was for us,” Anderson replied. “We thought smaller would be better.”

Little children shall lead us

Each year the percentage of U.S. children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes creeps up, and the average age at which they are diagnosed creeps down. As with so many other autoimmune illnesses, we don’t know what triggers the disease and we don’t know how to prevent it or delay it very long. The history of type 1 prevention trials is not a happy one: Many agents may help some patients to maintain insulin secretion but generally do so only for a few months.

Looking more closely at subgroups within those recently diagnosed with type 1, however, may give us better clues for drug strategies, suggested Carla Greenbaum, director of diabetes research at Benaroya Research Institute in Seattle, in a lecture this month at Joslin Diabetes Center.

If you plot the loss of insulin production over time among these patients and separate the patients by age, you see that “in adults, it’s a completely different pattern,” she said. Children typically are diagnosed with less insulin production and lose it far more quickly than adults.

That pattern argues for some clinical trials that only include children since the benefits of treatment may be easier to spot when the attack is moving so quickly, Greenbaum said. Studying this population may aid in understanding how autoimmune attacks progress in their most active periods, and to clarify whether these periods may include stages of remission and relapse, as found in multiple sclerosis. Moreover, trial groups could be much smaller.

Researchers would, of course, need to maintain exquisite care with this deeply vulnerable population, and to test treatments first in adults to make sure that no harm ensues to children. But we shouldn’t have to show efficacy in adults before we can try to show efficacy in children, she maintained, adding that the FDA hurdle should be efficacy before diagnosis, when the benefits of treatment are potentially far greater.

For decades we’ve had reasonably good tools to identify those at highest risks of type 1, and we can use these tools early on, Greenbaum noted. “To prevent disease, we’ll have to treat it in infancy or the first two years, turning it into a chronic disease like every other autoimmune disease for which we have therapy.”