Monthly Archives: June 2011

Lighting the Way to New Treatments

A variety of diseases in humans happen when proteins with important cellular functions are lacking or are produced in abnormally low amounts. One example is type-2 diabetes mellitus which is caused by a complex set of problems involving the use of sugars (mostly, glucose) as an energy source. After eating, sugars in food are taken up by the body, and a set of biochemical events in the gut and metabolic organs (pancreas, liver) that control the levels of sugar in the blood and that allow cells to take up and use the sugar properly are activated. When those mechanisms do not function properly, blood sugar levels can become very high (hyperglycemia) and other forms of toxicity can result. Because there are many proteins involved in this process, type-2 diabetes can result from multiple different defects in different molecular pathways. This often makes type-2 diabetes difficult to treat, in some cases it can be reversed by lifestyle and dietary modification, while in many others the use of insulin or an anti-diabetic drugs such as metformin is required alongside dietary modification in order to achieve adequate control over glucose levels. In a significant minority of cases even the combination of medication and lifestyle changes is not effective enough to prevent the consequences of type-2 diabetes, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.

A variety of novel treatments have been proposed, ranging from drugs that alter the functions of the defective proteins, to gene and/or protein therapy. In each case, the idea is to cause the proteins to be expressed and/or function normally, allowing sugar metabolism to progress optimally. Gene therapy involves causing a patient’s cells to express an artificial gene with the hope that it will, in turn, make more of a needed protein. Alternatively, therapies can involve direct administration of the protein, after it has been made by cells growing in a dish or by genetically-engineered animals (insulin treatment for type-1 diabetes is a good example). Gene therapy has many potential limitations, ranging from difficulties with the methods used to get the genes into the cells, to the fact that the cells may not express the protein in a normal amount and/or manner. Protein therapy suffers from the fact that it is very difficult to produce proteins suitable for drug treatment in large amounts or with sufficient potency and purity, meaning that these agents can be very expensive and have their own potential adverse effects.

A blended approach involves creating human cells that express proteins of interest in a laboratory, seeding them into an implantable “bio-reactor” and then placing the reactor into the patient’s body. Ideally, however, the expression of the protein by the cells in this bio-reactor would be controllable by the supervising physician, who could adjust it according to the patient’s needs and response to the treatment. This requires a “trigger” that turns up or down the activity of the cells. In a paper appearing in the journal Science, Swiss scientists have now demonstrated a method for controlling the production of proteins by an implanted bio-reactor; the trigger they developed is one free of any potential side effects of its own: namely, light.

To do this, they took advantage of an amazing mechanism – created by nature – that is buried deep in our eyes. Cells in our retina have proteins that sense light; when light strikes the proteins in these cells, a biochemical signal results which affects the physiology of the cell. This is the beginnings of how we see. In their article, Ye and colleagues report that theythat they used the light-sensitivity of the protein melanopsin to create cells in the laboratory that are capable of responding to light by producing a protein called glucagon like peptide-1, which promotes normal sugar balance and metabolism. They seeded these cells into a bio-reactor which they implanted just under the skin into mice that are type-2 diabetic. When they shined blue light onto the mice, some of it passed through the skin, reaching the bio-reactor. The cells released the protein, exactly as they were designed to do, and the secreted protein normalized the high blood sugar exhibited by the diabetic mice.

Blue light activates cells that express melanopsin proteins

Because different proteins are responsible for diabetes in different patients, it will eventually be possible to create individualized bio-reactors that restore the protein that is particularly important for that person; but in all cases, blue light can be the trigger. With that light comes the ability to control the levels of protein production according to the needs and response of the patient.

None of this would have been possible without decades of basic research into the biology of the eye (including studies in frogs which enabled the discovery of the critical light-sensitive protein melanopsin), into sugar metabolism  (in particular the studies in rats which identified glucagon like peptide-1 as an important regulator of insulin secretion ) and molecular genetics (which made it possible to modify the genetic structure of cells in the manner required here). Scientists working on these problems were not necessarily conducting research to cure human disease, but their discoveries laid the ground-work for these treatments anyway. Because of their enormous efforts, the new approach described by Ye and colleagues has potential for the treatment of a whole range of diseases where protein therapy is required, including cancer, liver disease and neurological problems. Once again, the future is “bright” for those suffering from those illnesses, thanks to the amazing combination of animal models and new technology.

Regards,

David Jentsch

Compliance at Work

One of the core principles at SR is that animal research should be conducted with the utmost care, responsibility and respect towards the animals.  All personnel involved in animal research should strictly follow the pertinent guidelines, regulations and laws.  Unfortunately, as in all human endeavors, there are isolated individuals who sometimes fail to adhere to established principles. The compliance system exists to detect such instances and take corrective action.

Recently, the USDA confirmed that an individual researcher at the University of Rochester was in violation of the Animal Welfare Act. The University was the first to discover the problem, reporting it to the USDA (the institution in charge of ensuring that the Animal Welfare Act is implemented), who confirmed the findings of non-compliance. The USDA were quick to identify the violations and publish the results, publicly, on their website.  This is an example of the compliance system at work.

As expected, animal rights groups, such as SAEN (warning: AR website), have used this opportunity to attack animal research, promising to “Expos[e] the truth to wipe out animal experimentation”. However, there are two important facts to consider:

  1. This was an isolated incident; and
  2. the system in place to deal with such incidents, responded appropriately.

We say the system responded appropriately in citing the University because the facts that are apparent about this case strongly indicate that this was an unacceptable deviation from established norms for the care and use of non-human primates in biomedical research laboratories.

With very few exceptions (for example, the need to restrict food in advance of anesthesia), monkeys must be fed every single day, with no exceptions or mistakes being permissible. What is worse, deprivation of food for multiple, consecutive days certainly produces profound distress in an animal that should have been identified by the combination of researchers, veterinary care providers and animal husbandry staff who were supposed to be carefully monitoring these animals every day. These animals were failed by the people who were responsible for their health and well-being. We hope that the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee that supervises these research activities have taken comprehensive measures to ensure that an event like this never happens again.

Speaking of Research must condemn the actions the researcher in question.  Such behavior undermines the hard work that the rest of the animal research community does to ensure the highest standards of animal welfare. Furthermore, we commend the USDA and the University of Rochester for the actions they have taken to ensure that such violations do not occur ever again.

The success of our training, accreditation and compliance systems is not only measured by their ability to detect and correct isolated violations, but also in preventing them from occurring in the first place.   Here, we believe it is imperative to recognize the tens of thousands of persons that conduct their research with the utmost care, responsibility and respect towards the animals.

Have No Fear, Mice Are Here

This nice report from PBS Chicago describes how researchers at Northwestern University are using mice to study post-traumatic stress disorder, and get at the basic mechanisms of fear. They already have positive results with experimental drugs that could eventually be used to treat people and prevent traumatic memories from taking over their lives — whether they are soldiers in combat or civilians caught up in a natural disaster.

Jelena Radulovic and colleagues at Northwestern’s ‘fear lab’ stress mice by first immobilizing them for an hour, then giving them a mild electrical shock. They can see changes in their behavior — fearful mice ‘freeze’ and don’t explore their surroundings.

They can look at chemical changes in the brains of these mice to see what happens as these stressful memories are made.

And now they have been able to test two new anti-anxiety drugs, finding that they can prevent this “mouse PTSD.” Because these drugs are related to one already approved for human use, human clinical trials could come relatively soon, according to the report.

Is it ethical to upset mice with the aim of producing drugs that could bring such benefits? Radulovic certainly thinks so, and I would agree. She says: “We are considering ethical problems all the time in the lab, and we are designing the experiments so that there is a minimal possible distress incurred to the animals in order to model human disorder.”

I’d add that her study would have had to clear Northwestern’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and assuming it was funded by the National Institutes of Health would also have had to pass ethics review there.

Andy Fell

Survey: Your Views On Research

I was recently contacted by a member of the University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program, who invited our members and supporters to complete a survey on the use of animals in science. The survey should take about 10 minutes and requires you to sign up (shouldn’t take long). So when you have a few spare minutes please take a look at it.

—>> Do the Survey <<—

From their website:

Lab Views is a place to discuss issues relating to the use of animals in science. Here you will be able to see the views of others and add your comments.

Lab Views is also a platform for scholarship. Your comments help ground our work on these topics and increase our understanding of these issues.

We would like to hear your views on six specific research projects that propose the use of animals. These projects cover a range of procedures and types of animal use. We also ask your views on how animal use should be governed and what information about animal use should be made public.

Cheers

Tom

Addenum:

This research was conducted by the University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program, not the Canadian Council on Animal Welfare as stated earlier.