Michael Fossel Michael is President of Telocyte

August 10, 2017

Progeria and Telomerase

Recently, John Cooke at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, showed that telomerase, when expressed in cells from progeric children, caused a “substantial physiologically relevant and meaningful effect on the lifespan and function of the cells.” As many of you know, progeria is a disease in which young children appear old, with baldness and osteoarthritis, and usually die of advanced cardiovascular disease, such as heart attacks, typically around age twelve. In short, they appear to have extremely rapid aging. Cooke’s results suggested that telomerase might offer a therapy. Oddly enough, both Cooke and the media described this finding as “surprising”.

While these results are promising, they are hardly surprising. In 1996, I published a book going into this prospect in detail, then wrote the first medical papers on this the medical potential in JAMA in 1997 and 1998. This was followed up with a medical textbook which explored the entire area in 2004, and another book in 2015 that described the medical potential of telomerase. What is truly surprising is not the most recent results, but that anyone finds the results at all surprising.

While not actually surprising, they present a bitter irony, in that any number of deaths, including deaths of progeric children, might have been prevented and may still be prevented if we only understand and act upon what we have known for two decades and which Cooke’s results only highlight again.

The irony – and my exquisite personal frustration – is that I proposed this approach annually in our global meetings for progeric children, starting twenty years ago. For about a decade, beginning several years before the turn of the millennium, I had been part of the annual global reunion of progeric children. Each year, we gathered with perhaps three dozen progeric children and their families from around the world, giving them a chance to meet one another, to talk with experts, and … to feel normal among other children and families who had the same problems. In 1999, among those progeric children was a young boy, whose parents were both physicians, and who were desperate to find a cure for progeria. Although I explained the potential of using telomerase as an intervention, they founded the Progeria Research Foundation and aimed it solely at genetic markers rather than epigenetic intervention. They managed to get significant funding through the NIH, fund raising, and government contacts in order to fund a set of studies that localized the genetic error responsible for progeria. As I predicted, none of the subsequent therapies based on their approach have had any effect on the disease. Worse yet, and like all the other progeric children I have known over the years, their son died of progeria. Had we gone straight to telomere-based interventions rather than taking the detour, many progeric children – not merely their son — might have been treated more effectively.

John Cooke and his colleagues have done well to show that they can reverse the problems seen in progeric cells, yet others have gone further. Maria Blasco’s group, for example, has shown that she can not merely reset aging in cells, as Cooke’s group has, but can do the same in animals. Moreover, we are collaborating with her group to take this approach in our upcoming human clinical trials next year, initially aiming at Alzheimer’s disease.

The fact that this comes as a surprise, given what we have known about the potential of telomerase for more than 20 years is a tragic example of wasted opportunities, wasted funding, and wasted lives. Telomerase was shown to reverse aging in cells 20 years ago; telomerase showed its value in animals 5 years ago; Telocyte is ready to show the benefits of telomerase in human trials next year.

July 30, 2017

Of Dog, Wires, and Alzheimer’s Disease

Filed under: Alzheimer's disease,Biotech — Tags: , , — admin @ 5:23 pm

I have a dog. Without exaggeration or exception, she one of the most delightful dogs that I have ever had in my life, and I have had a great many dogs in my life. Like many dogs, she is captivated by squirrels. They are both the aim and the bane of her canine life. The other day, seeing one running along a telephone wire stretching from pole-to-pole above her head, she not only barked and chased it, she lept as high as possible, hoping to catch it. The squirrel ignored her, except to chitter and tease her futile efforts. Repeated failures did not deter my dog. Given her charming, but narrowly limited understanding of of the world, the best response to failure was to redouble her physical effort, so she barked even louder and lept even higher to catch the squirrel. To no avail. It never occurred to her that leaping at telephone wires would never capture the squirrel. In her own way, and for a dog, she is intelligent, hardworking, skilled, and energetic, but she will never catch the squirrel by leaping at telephone wires.

For decades, large (and small) pharmaceutical companies have been trying to cure Alzheimer’s disease. They can clearly see the goal above them, they have resources and intelligence enough for the effort and, despite universal failure, they continue to work even harder and leap even higher to cure Alzheimer’s. Repeated failures do not deter them. Given their charming and narrowly limited understanding of the world, the best response is to redouble their efforts, so they invest more money, invest more effort, and leap all the higher. To no avail. It never occurs to them that they are aiming at the wrong targets, without any understanding of the pathology and the underlying fundamentals of the disease. They are intelligent, hardworking, skilled, and energetic, but they will never catch Alzheimer’s by aiming at the wrong targets.

Or squirrels by leaping at telephone wires.

July 17, 2017

Walking Toward a Cure for Alzheimer’s

Sometimes things go wrong, sometimes they go remarkably right.

        In clinical medicine, Swiss cheese theory is a explanation of why medical disasters occur, even if the explanation has a grizzly sort of humor. Basically, Swiss cheese theory says that “all the holes need to line up” for something to get through the cheese and for things to go drastically wrong in patient care. For example, if the physician is a moron (the first hole in the cheese) and orders the wrong medication, then the knowledgeable pharmacist usually cancels the order. But if the pharmacist is also a moron (the second hole in the cheese) and sends the wrong medication to the nurse, then the experienced nurse refuses to give the medication and stops the mistake long before the patient is injured. But, of course, if the nurse is also a moron (the third hole in the cheese) and simply gives the wrong medication, then you have a problem. When all the morons line up in a row, like holes in adjoining slices of Swiss cheese, then mistakes get all the way through the cheese and you have the perfect setting for a medical disaster. Medical errors are rarely the result of a single stunning error on the part of a truly epic moron; medical errors usually take a grizzly sort of teamwork among morons, all working together like clockwork. Swiss cheese theory strikes again.
Oddly enough, the opposite can also happen. If everything lines up in a positive sense then we have innovation, progress, and (very rarely) a miracle or two. For example, to have a success in the case of a biotech company, you need a series of positive events to line up. Over the past few years, that’s exactly what has been happening to Telocyte. While there have been no truly stunning single events that have created a fleeting (if flashy) success, there have been a collection of positive events that line up exactly as they need to. In our case, all the holes are lining up to build toward a successful cure for Alzheimer’s disease.
I first proposed that telomerase could be successful as a clinical intervention in 1996, but my proposal wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if a whole collection of groups and individuals hadn’t continued to move the field along over these past twenty years. From a purely practical perspective, it was the work of CNIO in Madrid (and that of their director, Maria Blasco) that demonstrated a technique that can easily be applied to human clinical trials. Yet, while we saw the potential for human disease, it was our CEO, Peter Rayson, who moved us along in a practical direction. Two years ago, Peter arranged to meet me in Boston, and we founded Telocyte. Our COO, Mark Hodges, joined us and helped shape our program. We had additional support from volunteers, spouses, and researchers, all of whom saw the value and shared our vision. Investors, such as Rob Beers, joined us, asking little and seeing much. We were approached by large global corporations, such as SAP and Amazon Web Services, who offered us support. We partnered with the world’s preeminent biotech law firm, Cooley LLP, who saw the potential and wanted to help. Other investors have come on board, investors who saw what we could do and who agreed with our goals.
Recently, we signed agreements with a major investor and submitted our protocols for FDA review, and we continue to move ahead, steadily and confidently, as we plan for our human trial next year. None of this has been the result of one person, nor even one group. Instead, it has been the result of a continual concatenation of just the right people at the right time. Everything has gracefully, carefully, and steadily lined up, creating an historic opportunity to save lives and rescue human minds. There have been no miracles, no sudden champagne, no instant success, nor wild celebrations. We haven’t seen wonders, but we’ve seen workers. We haven’t seen miracles, but we’ve met milestones. We haven’t had champagne, but now we have a chance.
With every step, a door has opened, people have helped, another step was taken.
And each step brings us closer to curing Alzheimer’s. Walk with us.

April 12, 2017

We Already Know It Works

Oddly enough, many investors don’t realize how far we are down the road to a cure.

In fact, most people don’t understand why such studies are done and – more to the point – why Telocyte is doing one. Just to clarify: we’re not doing an animal study to prove efficacy. We already know it’s effective in animals.

The reason we do an animal study is because the FDA, quite reasonably, requires an animal safety study in order to assess risks and side effects. Most people assume that animal studies are done to show that a potential therapy works in animals, so that it might work in humans as well. In fact, however, once you have shown that a therapy works in animals, as we have already, then before you can go on to human trials, you first need to do an animal safety study.

Animal studies are done to assess safety, not to assess efficacy.

For an initial human trial, the main question for the FDA isn’t efficacy, but safety. Sensibly, the FDA requires that the safety data be done carefully and credibly, to meet their careful standards. We know telomerase gene therapy works, but we still need to prove (to the FDA’s satisfaction) that telomerase gene therapy is safe enough to justify giving our therapy to human patients. So the question isn’t “Do we have a potential intervention for Alzheimer’s?” (which we do), but rather “Do we know what the risks are once we give it?” We’re fairly certain that we know those risk, but we need to document them rigorously.

In getting our therapy to human trials, you might say that there are three stages:

  1. Animal studies that show efficacy (already done by our collaborators).
  2. Animal studies that show safety (an FDA requirement).
  3. Human trials before release for general use (an FDA requirement).

Telocyte already has good data on the first stage: we know that telomerase is remarkably effective in reversing the behavioral decline seen in aging animals and that the same result will likely occur in aging human patients. In short, we are already confident that we can prevent and at least partially reverse Alzheimer’s disease. The FDA doesn’t need us to demonstrate efficacy: we already have good data on efficacy. What the FDA wants from us is more (and more detailed) data on the probable safety, which we’re about to provide.

While we are now ready to start on the FDA animal safety trial. Doing our FDA animal study isn’t a way of showing that telomerase gene therapy works – which is already clear from animal studies – but a detailed look at side effects, preparatory to our having permission to begin human trials next year.

Telomerase therapy works.

January 17, 2017

Intuition and Air Planes

The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.

— Albert Einstein, 1938

 

Most “advances” are purely incremental. We make minor advances in current techniques or technology, we marginally improve our existing surgery or drugs, or we precisely define the specifications of previously known molecules. Rarely do we develop a novel technology, an unprecedented therapy, or a distinctively new theory. Truly innovative, unexpected, and compelling changes require that – as Einstein said – we “regard old problems from a new angle.” Genuine advances in science don’t require experimental skill, they require conceptual creativity.

Advances require us to look at things in an entirely new way.

Our ability to cure age-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, does not depend on incremental improvements, but on exactly such changes in how we look at things. The same, it turns out, is true of aging and – oddly enough – telomeres. We automatically view the world through our preconceptions, and this has always been true. Upon seeing the world’s first automobile, and unable to grasp the idea of a “horseless carriage”, we asked where the horse was attached. Upon seeing the world’s first television, and unable to grasp the idea of an electron tube, we asked how tiny people fit into that television cabinet. We continually look at new things, but we see them using old eyes.

As an analogy, imagine a group of castaways who have spend years trapped on a large, unexplored, tropical island. Two of the castaways are exploring an unfamiliar beach, when they come upon a large, entirely unexpected, and unfamiliar object. The first castaway, a bright academic, carefully measures the dimensions of every single part of the object. She tells the rest of the castaways about her measurements and they present her with an award for her hard work. To some acclaim, she explains that the unknown object might actually prove useful: the castaways could use it to 1) hang up their laundry, 2) provide shade from the hot tropical sun, and, 3) offer shelter during tropical storms. The second castaway has a more intuitive and creative bent. He carefully looks over the object, announces that it’s a plane, and offers to fly it off the island and save their lives.

Small Jet Plane

Sometimes, it’s not the measurements, it’s the ability to see new possibilities.

In the case of aging and age-related diseases, the odd thing is that most people don’t see how anything can be done. They still want to hang their laundry on the wings of the plane, without realizing that the airplane can fly them to safety. At best, they concede that aging might be slowed down, perhaps with diet, exercise, stress management, and other behavioral changes. The idea that aging can be reversed, or that age-related diseases can be cured, is anathema to their thinking, despite the solid evidence in cells, tissues, and animal studies. I first described the potential of telomeres for clinical therapy 20 years ago and the evidence has been growing steadily since then, yet the general public, the media, and many academics still think of telomeres as a place to hang laundry, provide shade, and offer shelter from the rain. Is it really that hard to recognize a plane? Apparently so.

It would appear that the only way to show people what telomeres can do is to fly the plane and safe lives.

 

January 9, 2017

Conceptual Blinders

 

A week or so ago, an AI beat the world’s reigning champion in the game of Go.

The odd thing is not that it happened, but how it was done. By itself, the victory would just be one more example of “computers beating humans”, but there is a far more interesting and important facet to this event. Not only did the AI beat the world’s Go masters and the reigning world champion, but it did it, not by being better at using the known strategies and tactics, long the province of Go adepts, but by using “unconventional positions“ and “moves that seemed foolish but inevitably led to victory” (WSJ, January 5, 2017). In short, the AI went into playing the game without conceptual blinders. It developed novel (and effective) strategies based on reality, rather than on preconceived views of how the game “ought” to be played. Had the AI been programmed by Go masters, it wouldn’t have fared as well. It succeeded because it lacked the limitations that we as human beings unknowingly use when we approach a problem.

go-game-boardIF our assumptions create limits, then our outcomes are limited.

The same problem – our own assumptions – proscribes the limits of what we can do in science and medicine. If we simply program a computer to “delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease by lowering all known risk factors”, it might succeed, but the solution would be limited by how we set up the problem. In short, assumptions limit outcomes. If we merely restrict the program to lowering risks, then a computer program can’t show us how to cure Alzheimer’s. Such a program might, for example, recommend dietary changes, moving away from major highways and pollution, lowering blood pressure, avoiding infections, improving dental hygiene, lowering stress, and a myriad other changes that might delay Alzheimer’s. But the programs, the questions we pose, presuppose that Alzheimer’s can’t cured or prevented, only delayed. If we preclude finding a way to win, then all we find is a better way to lose.

Consider the historical analogs. If I want more efficient communication, I don’t ask a computer to design a better telegraph. If I want more efficient transportation, I don’t ask the computer to design a faster horse. If I want to cure polio, I don’t program a computer to design a better iron lung. And if I want to cure Alzheimer’s, I shouldn’t design a better way to attack amyloid, tau proteins, inflammation, or mitochondrial dysfunction. Merely because I’ve already assumed that those are the only strategies, I have limited my outcomes. If Alzheimer’s interventions are restricted to merely optimizing old strategies, we will never cure it.

Why be satisfied with a better telegraph, a faster horse, or a more efficient iron lung?

Programmed solutions, based on preconceived limits are a case of GIGO: “garbage in, garbage out”. True advances in science and medicine are not incremental; they demand innovative perceptions and constant reexamination of our premises. The example of an AI beating the world’s reigning Go champion wasn’t the result of incremental improvements in coding all of the Go strategies known to previous champions into a program and then tasking the program with implementing those accepted strategies. The AI was tasked with winning, regardless of previously accepted strategies. As a result, the AI actually WON, unexpectedly, but reliably, using innovative, startling, and unexpected approaches.

If we want to cure Alzheimer’s disease, we can’t use incremental approaches to time-worn (and uniformly ineffective) strategies. Like the AI playing Go, we need to stop focusing on accepted strategies and ask the fundamental question: how do we win? Not “how do we optimize the same old strategies?”, but how do we actually WIN? We shouldn’t rely on “programmed” approaches; we should toss out our preconceived programs, and ask how to win. With regard to Alzheimer’s disease, we need to stop asking how to optimize losing strategies and ask how to cure Alzheimer’s. Not “how do we lower amyloid levels?” or “how do we reduce tau tangles?”, but how do we cure and prevent the disease in the first place? If we really want to make a difference, then we need to free ourselves from our preconceptions and our old programming, and begin to ask the fundamental question: how can we cure Alzheimer’s?

Truly innovative approaches demand a ruthless reassessment of our assumptions.

We will cure Alzheimer’s only if we have the wit to truly use our own intelligence, with honesty, perceptiveness, and a willingness to examine reality.

December 29, 2016

The Ethics of Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease

The Ethics of Telomerase Treatment

 

The rationale behind telomerase therapy was first published in the medical literature two decades ago1 and has been updated and supported in academic textbooks2 and a more recent book for the public3 as well. The theoretical basis was cogent, even twenty years ago, and evidence has continued to support the hypothesis since then, in human cells, in human tissues, in informal human trials, and in formal animal trials. The potential implications of telomerase interventions in human age-related disease are unprecedented, well-supported, consistent, and feasible. The surprise is not that this approach is practical, but that it has taken so long to get telomerase therapy into clinical trials.

The reasons for the delay are complex and subtle, but are part of human nature.

For one thing, the clinical use of telomerase requires a novel and more sophisticated understanding of the aging process itself – at the genetic and epigenetic level – than has been the case until recently. Whenever a new scientific paradigm comes into play – whether a geocentric solar system, biological evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, or anything else – it takes time for us to outgrow previous, less accurate models and to accept a more complex, but more accurate understanding of reality. Reality is not a democracy and a consensus is no guarantee of truth.

Putting it bluntly: old theories never die, their proponents do.

A second problem is credibility. In the case of telomerase clinical trials, there have been a number of cases in which individuals or companies (impatient with the regulatory delays so common in modern drug development) have attempted “end runs” of social and regulatory acceptance. Unfortunately (and perhaps unfairly), these off-shore human trials are often judged as lacking credibility and this can also undercut the credibility of other attempts. If a company evades the FDA (or the accepted regulatory agencies in other countries, such as the EMA or CFDA) and runs small off shore trials their results are not only specifically disbelieved, but result in general disbelief, even of serious biotech endeavors that DO attempt to meet FDA requirements. Moreover, the companies that attempt “end runs” often seek publicity and the outcome can be a perception that while there is significant publicity, that’s all there is. Unfairly or accurately, the academic judgement becomes one of “incredible claims, but no credible data”. Fair or unfair, just or unjust, such is human nature and such is the nature of clinical research in today’s world.

A third problem is a general misunderstanding of the role of telomerase in cancer. Telomerase never causes cancer, although small amounts can be necessary to permit cancer. More striking, however, is the role of telomerase in genomic stability: telomerase upregulates DNA repair, drastically lowering the risk of cancer. Dividing cells – including cancer cells – require at least minimal telomerase, yet a significant presence of telomerase (and sufficiently long telomeres) is protective against cancer. Some have even suggested that cancer is a disease of the young, and attribute it to the presence of telomerase, but the clinical reality is that cancer increases exponentially with age and that this increase is directly attributable to the down-regulation of DNA repair due to telomere shortening. In short, telomerase can be used to prevent cancer.

A fourth problem is a naïve conception of the pathology that underlies Alzheimer’s disease (and other age-related diseases). Citing data on mice, genetically altered to express a human amyloid protein, they extrapolate the results to human Alzheimer’s patients without appreciating the complex cascade of pathology that actually occurs in humans, let alone the differences between mice and human patients.

Finally, some people argue with the ethics of treating Alzheimer’s disease in clinical trials at all, let alone by using gene therapy. One wonders whether they have ever spend a year or two watching a loved one slide down into the abyss. I have known hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Alzheimer’s patients and their family members. Almost without exception, most would do literally anything, try literally anything in an effort to find a cure. The pity of AD is that it is 100% fatal and there is NO effective therapy – at the moment. While few of us would risk an experimental gene therapy (even one as promising at telomerase) to treat wrinkles or osteoporosis (particularly since neither one is fatal), all of us would consider such therapy to treat Alzheimer’s disease. It is scarcely surprising that scarcely a day goes by without someone contacting me, asking about potential treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. These are not people who live in ivory towers, these are not people with a “degree in microbiology”, these are people who are deeply and personally affected by the tragedy.

They’ve BEEN there. They UNDERSTAND.

One critic of gene therapy noted that: “there are 7 patients killed by gene therapy clinical trials” (over the past 20 years). Compare this with the seven hundred thousand Alzheimer’s patients who died in 2016 alone of not having had gene therapy. Why would I choose to be one of 700,000 deaths per year?

For those of us who have spent decades treating dying patients, for those of us who have Alzheimer’s disease, and for those of us who are terrified by what is happening to those we love who have Alzheimer’s disease, the ethics of using gene therapy to try curing the most frightening disease on earth are clear enough.

The ethical weight lies on the side of compassion.

 

 

  1. Fossel: Reversing Human Aging (1996) . Banks and Fossel: Telomeres, cancer, and aging – Altering the human lifespan (JAMA, 1997). Fossel: Telomerase and the aging cell – Implications for human health (JAMA, 1998).
  2. Fossel: Cells, Aging, and Human Disease (Oxford University Press, 2004).
  3. Fossel: The Telomerase Revolution (BenBella Press, 2015).

December 13, 2016

Telomeres: The Purloined Letter of Aging

     “What is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound.”

                                                Edgar Allen Poe

 Edgar Allen Poe is still well-known for his poetry, he is less well-known for his detective stories. Some 170 years ago, his Parisian amateur detective, Dupin, was the conceptual forerunner for Sherlock Holmes, who made his London debut almost half a century later. Poe also made a series of observations that echo, even today, as we try to understand aging, age-related disease, and how we can cure them.

Poe’s detective pointed out that even intelligent, meticulous investigators are often oblivious to the obvious. The same can even be true of modern scientific investigators, who may focus so closely on their hard-won facts that the relationships between those facts – and their implications – are often overlooked. In aging research, for example, many investigators focus so intensely on genes, proteins, and small-molecular therapies, that they can miss the broader picture and miss an effective approach to curing the diseases of aging. Putting it simply, too often we focus our intellect, our education, and our strenuous effort on the “nouns”, but we entirely miss the “verbs”. We know the data, we fail to see what it means.

The intellect, the education, the dedication, and the funding are enormous, but our focus is off-target and the results, as expected, are futile. Truth, Poe tells us, is frequently overlooked, regardless of how intense our investigation. In describing such a case (in Poe’s case a policeman, in our case a scientist), Poe put it this way:

“… he erred continually by the very intensity of his investigations. He impaired his vision by holding the object too close. He might see, perhaps, one or two points with unusual clearness, but in so doing he, necessarily, lost sight of the matter as a whole. Thus there is such a thing as being too profound. Truth is not always in a well. In fact, as regards the more important knowledge, I do believe that she is invariably superficial.”

 As Poe suggest, we seek truth in the depth of a well in a valley, while truth is usually sitting in plain sight on the (easily visualized) mountain tops surrounding that valley. Such is the case with aging. It’s not that the truth is simple, for aging is far more complex than most of us give it credit for, but the truth is not found in the narrow details so much as it found in the overview of those details. The truth really is on the mountain tops, not in the bottom of a well, even when that well includes reams of data. It’s not the amount of data that is crucial, but the implications of that data. To give an example from clinical medicine, I may know everything about a patient’s fever, their hypotension, their abnormal white count, and their vomiting, but the numbers alone aren’t nearly as important as the realization that the patient has Ebola. Curing an Ebola infection cannot be relegated to lowering a fever, increasing the IV fluid, removing white cells, and given an anti-emetic. It’s not the individual therapies that cure Ebola, it’s the realization that you’re dealing with a viral infection and the use of a more general – and more effective – therapy, whether an antiviral or an immunization.

There is a parallel in understanding aging.

Treating the diseases of aging is not a matter of using individual therapies, but a matter of understanding the more profound relationships that change in aging cells. Until we do so, we will continue to fail when we try monoclonal antibodies for beta amyloid – as Eli Lilly finally realized with its Solanezumab trials – or merely attack tau proteins, mitochondrial changes, inflammation, or other targets. In each case, we have mistaken a plethora of data for a profundity of data. Only when we realize the actual complexity, the dynamic biological relationships, the profound effects of epigenetic changes, the role of telomeres as a therapeutic target, and that the fundamental pathology of aging and age-related diseases is rooted in cell senescence, only then will we — to our own vast and naïve surprise — discover that we can cure most of the diseases that still plague humankind.

 

November 22, 2016

Teaching Cells to Fish

Aging is the slowing down of active molecular turnover, not the passive accumulation of damage. Damage certainly accumulates, but only because turnover is no longer keeping up with that damage.

It’s much like asking why one car falls apart, when another car looks like it just came out of the showroom. It’s not so much a matter of damage (although if you live up north and the road salt eats away at your undercarriage, that’s another matter), as it is a matter of how well a car is cared for. I’ve see an 80-year-old Duesenberg that looks a lot better than my 4-year-old SUV. It’s not how well either car was made, nor how long either car has been around, but how well each car was cared for. If I don’t care for my SUV, my SUV rusts; if a car collector gives weekly (even daily) care to a Duesenberg, then that Duesenberg may well last forever.

The parallel is apt. The reason that “old cells” fall apart isn’t that they’ve been around a long time, nor even that they are continually being exposed to various insults. The reason “old cells” fall apart is that their maintenance functions slow noticeably and that maintenance fails to keep up with the quotidian damage occurring within living cells. If we look at knees, for example, the reason that our chondrocytes fail isn’t a matter of how many years you’ve been on the planet, nor even a matter of how many miles a day you spend walking around. The reason chondrocytes fail is because their maintenance functions slow down and stop keeping up with the daily damage. As it turns out, that deceleration in maintenance occurs because of changes in gene expression, which occur because telomeres shorten, which occur because cells divide. And, not at all surprisingly, the number of those cell divisions is related to how long you’ve been on the planet (how old you are) and how many miles you walk (or if you play basketball). In short, osteoarthritis is distantly related to your age and to the “mileage” you incur, but not directly so. The problem is not really the age nor is it the mileage; the problem is the failure to repair the routine damage and THAT failure is directly controlled by changes in gene expression.

So what?

The telomeres and gene expression may play a central role, but if your age and the “mileage” is distantly causing all those changes in cell division, telomere lengths, gene expression, and failing cell maintenance, then what’s the difference? Why bother with all the complexity? Why not accept that age and your “mileage” are the cause of aging diseases and stop fussing? Why not simply accept age-related disease?

Because we can change it.

The question isn’t “why does this happen?” so much as “what can we do about it?” We can’t change your age and it’s hard to avoid a certain amount of “mileage” in your daily life, but we CAN change telomeres, gene expression, and cell maintenance. In fact, we can reset the entire process and end up with cells that keep up with damage, just as your cells did when you were younger.

Until now, everyone who has tried to deal with only the damage (or the damaged cells) failed because they focused on damage rather than focusing on repair. For example, if you focus only on cell damage (as most big pharma and biotech companies do when they go after beta amyloid or tau proteins in trying to cure Alzheimer’s disease), then any clinical effect is transient and the disease continues to progress – which is why companies like Eli Lily, Biogen, TauRx, and dozens of other companies are frustrated. And small wonder. Or if you focus only on the damaged cells (and try removing them), then the clinical effect is not only transient, but will end up accelerating deterioration (as discussed in last week’s blog, see figure below) – which is why companies like Unity will be frustrated. Their approaches fail not because they don’t address the damage, but because they fail to understand the deceleration of dynamic cell maintenance that occurs with age – and fail to understand the most effective single clinical target. The key target is not damage, nor damaged cells, but the changes in gene expression that permit that damage, and those damaged cells, to lead to pathology. We can’t cure Alzheimer’s or osteoarthritis by removing senescent cells, but we can cure them by resetting those same cells.

Why you shouldn't kill senescent cells.

Why you shouldn’t kill senescent cells.

In the cases of removing senescent cells (an approach Unity advocates), wouldn’t it be better to remove the damaged cells and then reset the telomeres of those that remain? But why remove the damaged cells if you can reset them as well, with the result that they can now deal with the damage and remove it – as well as young cells do?

Why remove senescent cells at all?

While you could first remove senescent cells, then add telomerase so that the remaining cells could divide without significant degradation of function, why would you bother? You could much more easily, more simply, and more effectively treat all the cells in an aging tissue, reset their aging process and have no need to ever remove senescent cells in the first place. Instead of removing them, you simply turn them into “younger” and more functional cells. For an analogy, imagine that we have a therapy that could turn cancer cells into normal cells. If that were true, why would anyone first surgically remove a tumor? If you could really “reset” cancer cells into normal cells, there would be no need to do a surgical removal in the first place. While there is no such therapy for cancer cells, the analogy is still useful. Removing senescent cells is not only counter-productive, but (if we reset gene expression) entirely unnecessary.

Removal is unnecessary (both as to cost and pathology), risky, and medically contraindicated. You’d be performing a completely unnecessary procedure when a more cost-effective and reliable procedure was available. It would be exactly like removing your tonsils if you already had overwhelming data showing that an antibiotic was reliable, cheap, and without risk.

A cell with full telomere lengths – regardless of prior history – is already superior. The accumulated damage is not a static phenomenon, but a dynamic one. Reset cells can clean up damage. This is not merely theory, but supported well in fact, based on both human cells and whole animal studies. We shouldn’t think of damage as something that merely accumulates passively. All molecules are continually being recycled. The reason some molecular pools show increased damage isn’t because molecules denature, but because the rate of turnover slows, thereby allowing denatured molecules (damage) to increase within the pool.

Try this analogy: we have two buildings. One is run by a company that invests heavily in maintenance costs, the other is run by a company that cut its maintenance budget by 50%. The first building is clean and well-kept, the second building is dirty and poorly-kept. Would you rather raze the second building and then rebuild it or would you rather increase the maintenance budget back to a full maintenance schedule and end up with a clean building? This is precisely the case with young versus old cells: the problem is not the dirt that accumulates, the problem is that no one is paying for routine maintenance. There are cells that are “too senescent” to save, but almost all the cells in human age-related disease can be reset with good clinical outcome. There is no reason to remove senescent cells any more than (in the case of a dirty building), we need to send in the dynamite and bulldozers.

Too often, we try to approach the damage rather than looking at the longer view. Instead of addressing the process, we address the outcome. It’s like the problem that often occurs in global philanthropy, where we see famine and think we can solve the problem with food alone. While the approach is necessary – as a stopgap – many are surprised to find that simply providing free food for one year, results in bankrupt farmers and recurrent famines in the following years. Or we provide free medical care in a poor nation, then wonder why there is a dearth of medical practitioners in years to come, without realizing we have put them out of business and accidentally encouraged them to emigrate to someplace they can make a living and feed their families. We intend well, but we perpetuate the problem we are desperately trying to solve. Treating famine or medical problems, like treating the fundamental causes of age-related disease, is not simple and cannot be effectively addressed with band aids and superficial interventions, such as addressing damage alone or removing senescent cells. Effective clinical intervention – like effective interventions in famine or global healthcare – require a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of cell function, an understanding of the dynamic changes that underlie age-related pathology.

An adage (variously attributed to dozens of sources) about fish and fishing provides a useful analogy here:

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

If we want to intervene effectively in age-related diseases – whether Alzheimer’s, osteoarthritis, or myriad other problems of aging – we shouldn’t throw fish at medical problems.

We should teach our cells to fish.

 

November 15, 2016

Close to a Cure

We are now within two years of a cure for Alzheimer’s disease.

What a brash and disruptive claim! What hubris! Yet events are coming together, underlining a new and far more complete understanding of the disease, illuminating the cause, supporting the ability to intervene, safely and effectively. We finally see a way to intervene in the basic pathology, underlining the potential to both prevent and cure Alzheimer’s disease.

But why has it taken so long? Why was Alzheimer’s disease first defined 110 years ago, and yet remains totally beyond our ability to intervene even now? Why have all other approaches, whether those of big pharma or those of biotech, failed utterly? Why has not a single clinical trial shown any ability to change the progress of this frightening disease? Why is Alzheimer’s disease not only called “the disease that steals human souls”, but also called the “graveyard of companies”? Why has every single approach (which has at most shown only an effect on biomarkers, such as beta amyloid), still failed to show any change in the cognitive decline in patients with this disease? Why have we failed universally, until now?

Because every approach has concentrated on effects, not on causes.

Currently, most approaches target beta amyloid, many target tau proteins, and some target mitochondrial function, inflammation, free radicals, and other processes, but no one targets these problems as a single, unified, overarching process. Alzheimer’s isn’t caused by any one of these disparate processes, but by a broader, more complex process that results in every one of these individual problems. Beta amyloid isn’t a cause, but a biomarker. Equally, tau proteins, phosphodiesterase levels, APOE4, presenilins, and a host of other markers are effects, not causes. The actual cause lies upstream and constitutes the root cause of the dozens of separate effects that are the futile downstream targets of every current FDA trial aimed at Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding this, we will be targeting the “upstream” problem, rather than the dozens of processes that others target individually and without success. Our animal studies support the ability to effectively intervene in human disease: when we say that we are about to cure Alzheimer’s disease, we base claim that on a clear and consistent theoretical model, supported by equally clear and consistent data.

Within the next few months, we will begin our FDA toxicity study, preparatory to obtaining an IND that will permit us to begin our FDA human trial. Our toxicity study will take 6 months and will meet FDA requirements for human safety data. Our first human trial is planned to begin one year from now and is intended to show not only safety, but a clear efficacy. We will include a dozen human volunteers, each with (not just early, but) moderate Alzheimer’s disease and our human trial will last 6 months, including a single treatment and multiple measurements of behavior, laboratory tests, and brain scans. We expect to show unambiguous cognitive improvement within that six-month period. We are confident that we cannot merely slow, not merely stop, but reverse much of the cognitive decline in our twelve patients. We intend to demonstrate an ability to cure Alzheimer’s disease clearly and credibly.

Curing Alzheimer’s requires investments of money, time, and thought. The toxicity study costs 1 million dollars; the human trial costs 2.5 million dollars. Telocyte has half a million dollars committed to this effort and at least one group of investors with a firm interest in taking us all the way through the human trials. We are close and we grow closer each day.

After 110 years, we are about to cure Alzheimer’s.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress