Recommended reads: CAR-T for Lupus, CRISPR vision, journal closures

Can researchers use CAR-T for lupus?

It’s always exciting when one’s home institution has an interesting new therapy in development.  Here at UC Davis Health, there has been an increasing stream of such encouraging trials in the pipeline. I’ve written before about the promising trial of stem cells for spina bifida. Now there’s news related to innovative work on CAR-T cells for lupus. Let’s start with that.

CAR-T for lupus

A breakthrough for lupus treatment? Study explores CAR T-cell therapy for autoimmune disease, UC Davis. Here’s some of the key info on the new UC Davis trial:

“The new, industry-funded clinical trial with Cabaletta Bio is evaluating CABA-201, an investigational therapy in patients with either SLE or LN who have active disease. UC Davis Health is one of just nine health care institutions worldwide and the only hospital in the Western United States to participate in the clinical trial.

CABA-201 is a chimeric antigen receptor CAR T-cell therapy. Participants in the study will have their blood drawn and filtered through a machine in a process called apheresis. The procedure separates part of the blood such as platelets or white blood cells, while returning the rest of the blood to the body.

The trial will isolate T cells in the blood and researchers will genetically modify, or change, the T cells by putting in a “code” to add the CAR. This way, they can recognize, attack, and destroy the B cells in the participant’s body. This includes the “bad” B cells that engage in the participant’s autoimmune disease.”

Multiple teams around the world are working on this kind of approach to lupus.

I’ve been following other creative ideas for using CAR-T cells beyond treating cancers. One is the idea of deploying CAR-T cells against senescent cells. This could in theory help slow aging.

More recommended reads

• Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures, WSJ.  Too often journals stall for years even when faced with seriously flawed papers that they’ve published. Is there a possibility of an AI war in science publishing where fakers turn to AI and journals also turn to AI to battle them?
• The first two blastomeres contribute unequally to the human embryo, Cell. This is an intriguing study from Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz. She also works on human embryo models made from stem cells. Does anyone know if related to the new work unequal blastomere contributions have been reported in other species like mice?
• CRISPR-based gene editing treatment shows promise for rare eye disorder, MNT. Here’s the NEJM research article: Gene Editing for CEP290-Associated Retinal Degeneration. Conclusion: “The safety profile and improvements in photoreceptor function after EDIT-101 treatment in this small phase 1–2 study support further research of in vivo CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to treat inherited retinal degenerations due to the IVS26 variant of CEP290 and other genetic causes.” This was funded mainly by Editas, which has had a rough go of it lately so this is some welcome early news.
• Competence for neural crest induction is controlled by hydrostatic pressure through Yap, Nat. Cell Bio. One of the intriguing take-homes here is that pressure may shape facial development.
• Scientists Calculated the Energy Needed to Carry a Baby. Shocker: It’s a Lot, NYT. The energy needed is around 50,000 calories. I haven’t followed this narrow area that closely but it doesn’t seem that shocking to me.