Author: mantulin

Fine-tuning cancer medicine

New cancer research initiative eyes individualized treatment for patients.

Koch Institute
February 1, 2018

Details matter — perhaps most noticeably in the fight against cancer. Some patients respond to a given anticancer therapy, and some do not. A new initiative at MIT takes aim at those details, and the name of the game is precision.

The recently launched MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine (CPCM) is housed within MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and headed by physician-scientist Michael B. Yaffe, the David H. Koch Professor of Science and professor of biology and biological engineering. The center brings together leading Institute faculty members to focus on key research themes to accelerate the clinical translation of novel cancer discoveries, treatments, and technologies.

Engineering approaches to the clinic

While other institutions have begun efforts in precision medicine as well, the MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine stands out for using engineering approaches to solve complex clinical challenges in cancer treatment that are rooted in biology. In particular, the CPCM combines understandings of biological circuitry — along with engineering, computational, and mathematical techniques (as well as genomic ones) — to focus on signaling networks and pathways that are aberrantly regulated in cancer cells. This strategy is supported by the fact that most state-of-the-art molecularly targeted cancer therapies are focused on these key pathways.

At its core, the CPCM is driven by both internal and external collaboration, and is devoted to translational research to help the substantial number of patients who do not respond well to traditional cancer therapies — for example, those with triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, or advanced prostate cancer.

To improve outcomes for these patients, CPCM investigators are focused on four key areas of research. First among these is identifying and targeting the processes, signals, and mechanisms that determine an individual patient’s response to chemotherapy. Recent discoveries by CPCM researchers include mechanisms that cancer cells use to repair chemotherapy damage that should have killed them, to hide from drugs in protected “niches” in the body, or to grow when and where they should not.

CPCM members are also working on a second research pillar, which involves finding ways to use existing FDA-approved cancer drugs more effectively, particularly in carefully designed combinations. Combination therapies are currently used in the clinic to treat some cancers, yet the discovery process for these has been largely empirical. By contrast, CPCM investigators are integrating their knowledge of cancer biology, understandings of drugs’ mechanisms of action, and sophisticated analytical techniques, to identify or design specific combinations that work synergistically to disarm and then destroy cancer cells.

“We believe we can significantly alter cancer patients’ outcomes by determining the right combination of therapies and the right sequence of drugs for the right patients,” says Yaffe. “We’re also concentrating on innovative ways to give these drugs, like time-staggered dosages and nanoparticle delivery.” He notes that, as part of their analyses of drugs and combination regimens currently administered in the clinic, CPCM members expect to identify combinations of drugs that are not as efficacious when given simultaneously as when given sequentially, at specific intervals. Yaffe stresses that these will be important findings that could help reduce the toxicity of treatment by not exposing people to multiple drug toxicities at the same time.

In parallel with their efforts to use existing drugs more effectively, CPCM investigators are also working to identify compounds, materials, and approaches that can engage key “undruggable” genetic and molecular targets and disrupt processes driving drug resistance. The “undruggable” label often refers to the fact that a target protein or molecule lacks a site to which drugs can bind, and thus is not considered a good drug target by the pharmaceutical industry. However, using novel chemistry approaches, CPCM researchers have made early inroads against several such high-value cancer targets, including specific transcription factors and RNA-binding proteins. The center will continue and expand these efforts as the third part of its research platform, including collaborations with industry.

Finally, the fourth component of the CPCM’s efforts will be harnessing MIT’s particular expertise in big data analysis and tools to begin new and expedite existing cancer research efforts. For example, the researchers plan to use data analytics to identify selective panels of biomarkers that can be used to prioritize which of their drug combinations, treatment protocols, and formulations are best suited to a particular patient’s tumor.

Getting discoveries out the door

“Patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the work of the new MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine,” says Tyler Jacks, director of the Koch Institute and the David H. Koch Professor of Biology. “This research is, by its nature, imminently and rapidly translatable. By concentrating efforts on which patients will benefit from particular existing drugs or combinations of drugs, there is a relatively small step from laboratory to a treatment that is benefitting a cancer patient.”

While work on combinations of approved therapies, like that at the CPCM, may be more rapidly translatable than other cancer research, it can be challenging for industry to pursue, particularly when those drugs hail from multiple companies. Overcoming this disjuncture is one of the goals behind the establishment of the MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine, which was made possible by a generous gift from an anonymous donor.

Yaffe and his CPCM colleagues are committed to finding viable routes to move their cancer research into the clinic, particularly through collaborations between CPCM members, hospitals, and industry. Logistically, this means more work for the center’s research groups, including advanced laboratory and preclinical studies, safety and scale-up studies, and clinical-grade manufacturing, as well as staff to carry it out. Woven into these efforts, CPCM investigators will tap into MIT’s celebrated tradition of entrepreneurship and, even more so, the Institute’s expanding network of clinical collaborators. The philanthropic investment behind the center will provide stable financial support for the researchers’ endeavors.

The new hub in town

In addition to supporting the research of member investigators, the CPCM offers a robust training ground for young engineers and scientists interested in precision medicine. Moreover, it will serve as the hub of precision cancer medicine research at MIT and beyond, connecting with researchers across the MIT campus and partnering with clinical investigators in Greater Boston’s noted health care centers and around the country.

Five outstanding cancer researchers make up the center’s founding faculty:

  • Michael B. Yaffe, MD, PhD, director, MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine; David H. Koch Professor of Science, professor of biology and biological engineering
  • Michael Hemann, PhD, associate professor of biology
  • Angela Koehler, PhD, Karl Van Tassel (1925) Career Development Associate Professor, assistant professor of biological engineering
  • Matthew Vander Heiden, MD, PhD, associate professor of biology, associate director, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
  • Forest M. White, PhD, professor of biological engineering

Efforts are currently underway to recruit an assistant director and a scientific advisory board.

As part of its charge, and key to spurring the new collaborations in precision cancer medicine that are its focus, the MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine will also convene lectures, events, and scientific exchanges and symposia, the first of which is slated for the fall.

Reading and writing DNA

Department of Biology kicks off IAP seminar series with a lecture by synthetic-biology visionary George Church.

Raleigh McElvery | Department of Biology
January 31, 2018

Thanks to the invention of genome sequencing technology more than three decades ago, we can now read the genetic blueprint of virtually any organism. After the ability to read came the ability to edit — adding, subtracting, and eventually altering DNA wherever we saw fit. And yet, for George Church, a professor at Harvard Medical School, associate member of the Broad Institute, and founding core faculty and lead for synthetic biology at the Wyss Institute — who co-pioneered direct genome sequencing in 1984 — the ultimate goal is not just to read and edit, but also to write.

What if you could engineer a cell resistant to all viruses, even the ones it hadn’t yet encountered? What if you could grow your own liver in a pig to replace the faulty one you were born with? What if you could grow an entire brain in a dish? In his lecture on Jan. 24 — which opened the Department of Biology’s Independent Activities Period (IAP) seminar series, Biology at Transformative Frontiers — Church promised all this and more.

“We began by dividing the Biology IAP events into two tracks: one related to careers in academia and another equivalent track for industry,” says Jing-Ke Weng, assistant professor and IAP faculty coordinator for the department. “But then it became clear that George Church, Patrick Brown, and other speakers we hoped to invite blurred the boundaries between those two tracks. The Biology at Transformative Frontiers seminar series became about the interface of these trajectories, and how transferring technologies from lab bench to market is altering society as we know it.”

The seminar series is a staple in the Department of Biology’s IAP program, but during the past several years it has been oriented more toward quantitative biology. Weng recalls these talks as being relegated to the academic sphere, and wanted to show students that the lines between academia, industry, and scientific communication are actually quite porous.

“We chose George Church to kick off the series because he’s been in synthetic biology for a long time, and continues to have a successful academic career even while starting so many companies,” says Weng.

Church’s genomic sequencing methods inspired the Human Genome Project in 1984 and resulted in the first commercial genome sequence (the bacterium Helicobacter pylori) 10 years later. He also serves as the director of the Personal Genome Project, the “Wikipedia” of open-access human genomic data. Beyond these ventures, he’s known for his work on barcoding, DNA assembly from chips, genome editing, and stem cell engineering.

He’s also the same George Church who converted the book he co-authored with Ed Regis, “Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves,” into a four-letter code based on the four DNA nucleotides (A, T, C, and G), subsisted on nutrient broth from a lab vendor for an entire year, and dreams of eventually resurrecting woolly mammoths. He’s being featured in an upcoming Netflix Original documentary, so when he arrived at the Stata Center to give his lecture last week he was trailed by a camera crew.

According to Church, the transformative technologies that initially allowed us to read and edit DNA have grown exponentially in recent years with the invention of molecular multiplexing and CRISPR-Cas9 (think Moore’s Law but even more exaggerated). But there’s always room for improvement.

“There’s been a little obsession with CRISPR-Cas9s and other CRISPRs,” said Church. “Everybody is saying how great it is, but it’s important to say what’s wrong with it as well, because that tells us where we’re going next and how to improve on it.”

He outlined several of his own collaborations, including those aimed at devising more precise methods of genome editing, one resulting in 321 changes to the Escherichia coli genome — the largest change in any genome yet — rendering the bacterium resistant to all viruses, even those it had not yet come into contact with. The next step? Making similarly widespread changes in plants, animals, and eventually perhaps even human tissue. In fact, Church and his team have set their sights on combatting the global transplantation crisis with humanlike organs grown in animals.

“Since the dawn of transplantation as a medical practice, we’ve had to use either identical twins or rare matches that are very compatible immunologically, because we couldn’t engineer the donor or the recipient,” said Church.

Since it’s clearly unethical to engineer human donors, Church reasoned, why not engineer animals with compatible organs instead? Pigs, to be exact, since most of their organs are comparable in size and function to our own.

“This is an old dream; I didn’t originate it,” said Church. “It started about 20 years ago, and the pioneers of this field worked on it for a while, but dropped it largely because the number of changes to the genome were daunting, and there was a concern that the viruses all pigs make — retroviruses — would be released and infect the immunocompromised organ recipient.”

Church and his team successfully disrupted 62 of these retroviruses in pig cells back in 2015, and in 2017 they used these cells to generate living, healthy pigs. Today, the pigs are thriving and rearing piglets of their own. Church is also considering the prospect of growing augmented organs in pigs for human transplantation, perhaps designing pathogen-, cancer-, and age-resistant organs suitable for cryopreservation.

“Hopefully we’ll be doing nonhuman primate trials within a couple of years, and then almost immediately after that human trials,” he said.

Another possibility, rather than cultivating organs in animals for transplant, is to generate them in a dish. A subset of Church’s team is working on growing from scratch what is arguably the most complicated organ of all, the brain.

This requires differentiating multiple types of cells in the same dish so they can interact with each other to form the complex systems of communication characteristic of the human brain.

Early attempts at fashioning brain organoids often lacked capillaries to distribute oxygen and nutrients (roughly one capillary for each of the 86 billion neurons in the human brain). However, thanks to their new human transcription factor library, Church and colleagues have begun to generate the cell types necessary to create such capillaries, plus the scaffolding needed to promote the three-dimensional organization of these and additional brain structures. Church and his team have not only successfully integrated the structures with one another, but have also created an algorithm that spits out the list of molecular ingredients required to generate each cell type.

Church noted these de novo organoids are extremely useful in determining which genetic variants are responsible for certain diseases. For instance, you could sequence a patient’s genome and then create an entire organoid with the mutation in question to test whether it was the root cause of the condition.

“I’m still stunned by the breadth of projects and approaches that he’s running simultaneously,” says Emma Kowal, a second-year graduate student, member of Weng’s planning committee, and a former researcher in Church’s lab. “The seminar series is called Biology at Transformative Frontiers, and George is very much a visionary, so we thought it would be a great way to start things off.”

The four-part series also features Melissa Moore, chief scientific officer of the Moderna Therapeutics mRNA Research Platform, Jay Bradner, president of the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, and Patrick Brown, CEO and founder of Impossible Foods.

How some facial malformations arise

Study explains why mutations that would seemingly affect all cells lead to face-specific birth defects.

Anne Trafton | MIT News Office
January 24, 2018

About 1 in 750 babies born in the United States has some kind of craniofacial malformation, accounting for about one-third of all birth defects.

Many of these craniofacial disorders arise from mutations of “housekeeping” genes, so called because they are required for basic functions such as building proteins or copying DNA. All cells in the body require these housekeeping genes, so scientists have long wondered why these mutations would produce defects specifically in facial tissues.

Researchers at MIT and Stanford University have now discovered how one such mutation leads to the facial malformations seen in Treacher-Collins Syndrome, a disorder that affects between 1 in 25,000 and 1 in 50,000 babies and produces underdeveloped facial bones, especially in the jaw and cheek.

The team found that embryonic cells that form the face are more sensitive to the mutation because they more readily activate a pathway that induces cell death in response to stress. This pathway is mediated by a protein called p53. The new findings mark the first time that scientists have determined how mutations in housekeeping genes can have tissue-specific effects during embryonic development.

“We were able to narrow down, at the molecular level, how issues with general regulators that are used to make ribosomes in all cells lead to defects in specific cell types,” says Eliezer Calo, an MIT assistant professor of biology and the lead author of the study.

Joanna Wysocka, a professor of chemical and systems biology at Stanford University, is the senior author of the study, which appears in the Jan. 24 online edition of Nature.

From mutation to disease

Treacher-Collins Syndrome is caused by mutations in genes that code for proteins required for the assembly and function of polymerases. These proteins, known as TCOF1, POLR1C, and POLR1D, are responsible for transcribing genes that make up cell organelles called ribosomes. Ribosomes are critical to all cells.

“The question we were trying to understand is, how is it that when all cells in the body need ribosomes to function, mutations in components that are required for making the ribosomes lead to craniofacial disorders? In these conditions, you would expect that all the cell types of the body would be equally affected, but that’s not the case,” Calo says.

During embryonic development, these mutations specifically affect a type of embryonic cells known as cranial neural crest cells, which form the face. The researchers already knew that the mutations disrupt the formation of ribosomes, but they didn’t know exactly how this happens. To investigate that process, the researchers engineered larvae of zebrafish and of an aquatic frog known as Xenopus to express proteins harboring those mutations.

Their experiments revealed that the mutations lead to impairment in the function of an enzyme called DDX21. When DDX21 dissociates from DNA, the genes that encode ribosomal proteins do not get transcribed, so ribosomes are missing key components and can’t function normally. However, this DDX21 loss only appears to happen in cells that are highly sensitive to p53 activation, including cranial neural crest cells. These cells then undergo programmed cell death, which leads to the facial malformations seen in Treacher-Collins Syndrome, Calo says.

Other embryonic cells, including other types of neural crest cells, which form nerves and other parts of the body such as connective tissue, are not affected by the loss of DDX21.

Role of DNA damage

The researchers also found that mutations of POLR1C and POLR1D also cause damage to stretches of DNA that encode some of the RNA molecules that make up ribosomes. The amount of DNA damage correlated closely with the severity of malformations seen in individual larvae, and mutations in POLR1C led to far more DNA damage than mutations in POLR1D. The researchers believe these differences in DNA damage may explain why the severity of Treacher-Collins Syndrome can vary widely among individuals.

Calo’s lab is now studying why affected cells experience greater levels of DNA damage in those particular sequences. The researchers are also looking for compounds that could potentially prevent craniofacial defects by making the cranial neural crest cells more resistant to p53-induced cell death. Such interventions could have a big impact but would have to be targeted very early in embryonic development, as the cranial neural crest cells begin forming the tissue layers that will become the face at about three weeks of development in human embryos.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and March of Dimes Foundation.

Twelve School of Science faculty members appointed to named professorships
School of Science
January 19, 2018

The School of Science has appointed 12 faculty members to named professorships.

The new appointments are:

Stephen Bell, the Uncas (1923) and Helen Whitaker Professor in the Department of Biology: Bell is a leader in the field of DNA replication, specifically in the mechanisms controlling initiation of chromosome duplication in eukaryotic cells. Combining genetics, genomics, biochemistry, and single-molecule approaches, Bell has provided a mechanistic picture of the assembly of the bidirectional DNA replication machine at replication origins.

Timothy Cronin, the Kerr-McGee Career Development Professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences: Cronin is a climate physicist interested in problems relating to radiative‐convective equilibrium, atmospheric moist convection and clouds, and the physics of the coupled land‐atmosphere system.

Nikta Fakhri, the Thomas D. and Virginia W. Cabot Professor in the Department of Physics: Combining approaches from physics, biology, and engineering, Fakhri seeks to understand the principles of active matter and aims to develop novel probes, such as single-walled carbon nanotubes, to map the organization and dynamics of nonequilibrium heterogeneous materials.

Robert Griffin, the Arthur Amos Noyes Professor in the Department of Chemistry: Griffin develops new magnetic resonance techniques to study molecular structure and dynamics and applies them to interesting chemical, biophysical, and physical problems such as the structure of large enzyme/inhibitor complexes, membrane proteins, and amyloid peptides and proteins.

Jacqueline Hewitt, the Julius A. Stratton Professor in Electrical Engineering and Physics in the Department of Physics: Hewitt applies the techniques of radio astronomy, interferometry, and image processing to basic research in astrophysics and cosmology. Current topics of interest are observational signatures of the epoch of reionization and the detection of transient astronomical radio sources, as well as the development of new instrumentation and techniques for radio astronomy.

William Minicozzi, the Singer Professor of Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics: Minicozzi is a geometric analyst who, with colleague Tobias Colding, has resolved a number of major results in the field, among them: proof of a longstanding S.T. Yau conjecture on the function theory on Riemannian manifolds, a finite-time extinction condition of the Ricci flow, and recent work on the mean curvature flow.

Aaron Pixton, the Class of 1957 Career Development Professor in the Department of Mathematics: Pixton works on various topics in enumerative algebraic geometry, including the tautological ring of the moduli space of algebraic curves, moduli spaces of sheaves on 3-folds, and Gromov-Witten theory.

Gabriela Schlau-Cohen, the Thomas D. and Virginia W. Cabot Professor in the Department of Chemistry: Schlau-Cohen’s research employs single-molecule and ultrafast spectroscopies to explore the energetic and structural dynamics of biological systems. She develops new methodology to measure ultrafast dynamics on single proteins to study systems with both sub-nanosecond and second dynamics. In other research, she merges optical spectroscopy with model membrane systems to provide a novel probe of how biological processes extend beyond the nanometer scale of individual proteins.

Alexander Shalek, the Pfizer Inc.-Gerald Laubach Career Development Professor in the Department of Chemistry: Shalek studies how our individual cells work together to perform systems-level functions in both health and disease. Using the immune system as his primary model, Shalek leverages advances in nanotechnology and chemical biology to develop broadly applicable platforms for manipulating and profiling many interacting single cells in order to examine ensemble cellular behaviors from the bottom up.

Scott Sheffield, the Leighton Family Professor in the Department of Mathematics: Sheffield is a probability theorist, working on geometrical questions that arise in such areas as statistical physics, game theory and metric spaces, as well as long-standing problems in percolation theory.

Susan Solomon, the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor in Environmental Studies in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences: Solomon focuses on issues relating to both atmospheric climate chemistry and climate change, and is well-recognized for her insights in explaining the cause of the Antarctic ozone “hole” as well as her research on the irreversibility of global warming linked to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and on the influence of the ozone hole on the climate of the southern hemisphere.

Stefani Spranger, the Howard S. (1953) and Linda B. Stern Career Development Professor in the Department of Biology: Spranger studies the interactions between cancer and the immune system with the goal of improving existing immunotherapies or developing novel therapeutic approaches. Spranger seeks to understand how CD8 T cells, otherwise known as killer T cells, are excluded from the tumor microenvironment, with a focus on lung and pancreatic cancers.

School of Science Infinite Kilometer Awards for 2017

Eight research staffers and postdocs are recognized for their extraordinary contributions and dedication to programs, colleagues, and the Institute.

School of Science
January 16, 2018

The MIT School of Science has announced the 2017 winners of the Infinite Kilometer Award. The Infinite Kilometer Award was established in 2012 to highlight and reward the extraordinary — but often underrecognized — work of the school’s research staff and postdocs.

Recipients of the award are exceptional contributors to their research programs. In many cases, they are also deeply committed to their local or global MIT community, and are frequently involved in mentoring and advising their junior colleagues, participating in the school’s educational programs, making contributions to the MIT Postdoctoral Association, or contributing to some other facet of the MIT community.

In addition to a monetary award, honorees and their colleagues, friends, and family are invited to a celebratory lunch in May.

The 2017 Infinite Kilometer winners are:

Rodrigo Garcia, McGovern Institute for Brain Research;

Lydia Herzel, Department of Biology;

Yutaro Iiyama, Laboratory for Nuclear Science;

Kendrick Jones, Picower Institute for Learning and Memory;

Matthew Musgrave, Laboratory for Nuclear Science;

Cody Siciliano, Picower Institute for Learning and Memory;

Peter Sudmant, Department of Biology;

Ashley Watson, Picower Institute for Learning and Memory;

The School of Science is also currently accepting nominations for its Infinite Mile Awards. Nominations are due by Feb. 16 and all School of Science employees are eligible. Infinite Mile Awards will be presented with the Infinite Kilometer Awards this spring.

Biologists’ new peptide could fight many cancers

Drug that targets a key cancer protein could combat leukemia and other types of cancer.

Anne Trafton | MIT News Office
January 15, 2018

MIT biologists have designed a new peptide that can disrupt a key protein that many types of cancers, including some forms of lymphoma, leukemia, and breast cancer, need to survive.

The new peptide targets a protein called Mcl-1, which helps cancer cells avoid the cellular suicide that is usually induced by DNA damage. By blocking Mcl-1, the peptide can force cancer cells to undergo programmed cell death.

“Some cancer cells are very dependent on Mcl-1, which is the last line of defense keeping the cell from dying. It’s a very attractive target,” says Amy Keating, an MIT professor of biology and one of the senior authors of the study.

Peptides, or small protein fragments, are often too unstable to use as drugs, but in this study, the researchers also developed a way to stabilize the molecules and help them get into target cells.

Loren Walensky, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, is also a senior author of the study, which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of Jan. 15. Researchers in the lab of Anthony Letai, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber, were also involved in the study, and the paper’s lead author is MIT postdoc Raheleh Rezaei Araghi.

A promising target

Mcl-1 belongs to a family of five proteins that play roles in controlling programmed cell death, or apoptosis. Each of these proteins has been found to be overactive in different types of cancer. These proteins form what is called an “apoptotic blockade,” meaning that cells cannot undergo apoptosis, even when they experience DNA damage that would normally trigger cell death. This allows cancer cells to survive and proliferate unchecked, and appears to be an important way that cells become resistant to chemotherapy drugs that damage DNA.

“Cancer cells have many strategies to stay alive, and Mcl-1 is an important factor for a lot of acute myeloid leukemias and lymphomas and some solid tissue cancers like breast cancers. Expression of Mcl-1 is upregulated in many cancers, and it was seen to be upregulated as a resistance factor to chemotherapies,” Keating says.

Many pharmaceutical companies have tried to develop drugs that target Mcl-1, but this has been difficult because the interaction between Mcl-1 and its target protein occurs in a long stretch of 20 to 25 amino acids, which is difficult to block with the small molecules typically used as drugs.

Peptide drugs, on the other hand, can be designed to bind tightly with Mcl-1, preventing it from interacting with its natural binding partner in the cell. Keating’s lab spent many years designing peptides that would bind to the section of Mcl-1 involved in this interaction — but not to other members of the protein family.

Once they came up with some promising candidates, they encountered another obstacle, which is the difficulty of getting peptides to enter cells.

“We were exploring ways of developing peptides that bind selectively, and we were very successful at that, but then we confronted the problem that our short, 23-residue peptides are not promising therapeutic candidates primarily because they cannot get into cells,” Keating says.

To try to overcome this, she teamed up with Walensky’s lab, which had previously shown that “stapling” these small peptides can make them more stable and help them get into cells. These staples, which consist of hydrocarbons that form crosslinks within the peptides, can induce normally floppy proteins to assume a more stable helical structure.

Keating and colleagues created about 40 variants of their Mcl-1-blocking peptides, with staples in different positions. By testing all of these, they identified one location in the peptide where putting a staple not only improves the molecule’s stability and helps it get into cells, but also makes it bind even more tightly to Mcl-1.

“The original goal of the staple was to get the peptide into the cell, but it turns out the staple can also enhance the binding and enhance the specificity,” Keating says. “We weren’t expecting that.”

Killing cancer cells

The researchers tested their top two Mcl-1 inhibitors in cancer cells that are dependent on Mcl-1 for survival. They found that the inhibitors were able to kill these cancer cells on their own, without any additional drugs. They also found that the Mcl-1 inhibitors were very selective and did not kill cells that rely on other members of the protein family.

Keating says that more testing is needed to determine how effective the drugs might be in combating specific cancers, whether the drugs would be most effective in combination with others or on their own, and whether they should be used as first-line drugs or when cancers become resistant to other drugs.

“Our goal has been to do enough proof-of-principle that people will accept that stapled peptides can get into cells and act on important targets. The question now is whether there might be any animal studies done with our peptide that would provide further validation,” she says.

Joshua Kritzer, an associate professor of chemistry at Tufts University, says the study offers evidence that the stapled peptide approach is worth pursuing and could lead to new drugs that interfere with specific protein interactions.

“There have been a lot of biologists and biochemists studying essential interactions of proteins, with the justification that with more understanding of them, we would be able to develop drugs that inhibit them. This work now shows a direct line from biochemical and biophysical understanding of protein interactions to an inhibitor,” says Kritzer, who was not involved in the research.

Keating’s lab is also designing peptides that could interfere with other relatives of Mcl-1, including one called Bfl-1, which has been less studied than the other members of the family but is also involved in blocking apoptosis.

The research was funded by the Koch Institute Dana-Farber Bridge Project and the National Institutes of Health.

How the brain selectively remembers new places

Neuroscientists identify a circuit that helps the brain record memories of new locations.

Anne Trafton | MIT News Office
December 25, 2017

When you enter a room, your brain is bombarded with sensory information. If the room is a place you know well, most of this information is already stored in long-term memory. However, if the room is unfamiliar to you, your brain creates a new memory of it almost immediately.

MIT neuroscientists have now discovered how this occurs. A small region of the brainstem, known as the locus coeruleus, is activated in response to novel sensory stimuli, and this activity triggers the release of a flood of dopamine into a certain region of the hippocampus to store a memory of the new location.

“We have the remarkable ability to memorize some specific features of an experience in an entirely new environment, and such ability is crucial for our adaptation to the constantly changing world,” says Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience and director of the RIKEN-MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics at the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory.

“This study opens an exciting avenue of research into the circuit mechanism by which behaviorally relevant stimuli are specifically encoded into long-term memory, ensuring that important stimuli are stored preferentially over incidental ones,” adds Tonegawa, the senior author of the study.

Akiko Wagatsuma, a former MIT research scientist, is the lead author of the study, which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of Dec. 25.

New places

In a study published about 15 years ago, Tonegawa’s lab found that a part of the hippocampus called the CA3 is responsible for forming memories of novel environments. They hypothesized that the CA3 receives a signal from another part of the brain when a novel place is encountered, stimulating memory formation.

They believed this signal to be carried by chemicals known as neuromodulators, which influence neuronal activity. The CA3 receives neuromodulators from both the locus coeruleus (LC) and a region called the ventral tegmental area (VTA), which is a key part of the brain’s reward circuitry. The researchers decided to focus on the LC because it has been shown to project to the CA3 extensively and to respond to novelty, among many other functions.

The LC responds to an array of sensory input, including visual information as well as sound and odor, then sends information on to other brain areas, including the CA3. To uncover the role of LC-CA3 communication, the researchers genetically engineered mice so that they could block the neuronal activity between those regions by shining light on neurons that form the connection.

To test the mice’s ability to form new memories, the researchers placed the mice in a large open space that they had never seen before. The next day, they placed them in the same space again. Mice whose LC-CA3 connections were not disrupted spent much less time exploring the space on the second day, because the environment was already familiar to them. However, when the researchers interfered with the LC-CA3 connection during the first exposure to the space, the mice explored the area on the second day just as much as they had on the first. This suggests that they were unable to form a memory of the new environment.

The LC appears to exert this effect by releasing the neuromodulator dopamine into the CA3 region, which was surprising because the LC is known to be a major source of norepinephrine to the hippocampus. The researchers believe that this influx of dopamine helps to boost CA3’s ability to strengthen synapses and form a memory of the new location.

They found that this mechanism was not required for other types of memory, such as memories of fearful events, but appears to be specific to memory of new environments. The connections between the LC and CA3 are necessary for long-term spatial memories to form in CA3.

“The selectivity of successful memory formation has long been a puzzle,” says Richard Morris, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the research. “This study goes a long way toward identifying the brain mechanisms of this process. Activity in the pathway between the locus coeruleus and CA3 occurs most strongly during novelty, and it seems that activity fixes the representations of everyday experience, helping to register and retain what’s been happening and where we’ve been.”

Choosing to remember

This mechanism likely evolved as a way to help animals survive, allowing them to remember new environments without wasting brainpower on recording places that are already familiar, the researchers say.

“When we are exposed to sensory information, we unconsciously choose what to memorize. For an animal’s survival, certain things are necessary to be remembered, and other things, familiar things, probably can be forgotten,” Wagatsuma says.

Still unknown is how the LC recognizes that an environment is new. The researchers hypothesize that some part of the brain is able to compare new environments with stored memories or with expectations of the environment, but more studies are needed to explore how this might happen.

“That’s the next big question,” Tonegawa says. “Hopefully new technology will help to resolve that.”

The research was funded by the RIKEN Brain Science Institute, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the JPB Foundation.

The need to know

Driven by curiosity, former auto mechanic Ryan Kohn now pursues a PhD in biology.

Bridget E. Begg | Office of Graduate Education
December 18, 2017

The name of Ryan Kohn’s son, Jayden, is tattooed in Hindi on his left outer forearm. Other tattoos on his inner arms declare “Respect” and “Loyalty.” A Latin phrase balances the tableau on his right outer forearm: “Many fear their reputation. Few their conscience.”

Kohn may stand out in the corporate milieu of Kendall Square, but he feels home at MIT. “No one has ever judged me,” he says. “For as rigorous scientifically and academically as MIT is, it can be such a laid-back place. I’ve always felt included, if I wanted to be.”

Kohn, now a PhD candidate in the Jacks Lab at MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, has overcome a challenging adolescence, colored by economic difficulties and punctuated by personal loss. These hardships developed in him a resilient curiosity that made an unexpected cultural match between MIT and Kohn, a father and former mechanic from Boyertown, Pennsylvania.

Compelled to seek answers

After being placed in an alternative high school outside of Philadelphia for insubordination, Kohn graduated with a 1.8 GPA. His son was born three years later, while Kohn worked for six and a half years as a mechanic and manager at a Dodge dealership. After losing his job during the Great Recession, he decided to go back to school, attending his local community college on a premed track before transferring to Kutztown University after two years.

Kohn attributes some of his troubled youth to early tragedy. His older sister, Nicole, died from sepsis when she was a senior in college, just 10 days after 9/11; on the morning of her funeral, Kohn’s grandfather passed away from colon cancer. Kohn felt compelled to understand why and how these illnesses happened to his loved ones, and found himself spending his time googling the immune system, the inflammatory response, and cancer.

This habit remained with him. Kohn recalls scouring the internet again and again to understand illness when it arose near him, from his own son’s immunoglobulin A deficiency to the early-onset multiple sclerosis of a friend. Though he admits he did not yet have the core scientific knowledge to fully grasp what he read at the time, Kohn says he needed, deeply, to try.

At Kutztown University, Kohn met his undergraduate mentor Angelika Antoni, a professor who taught both oncology and immunology. According to Kohn, Antoni constantly encouraged him to pursue his curiosity despite the college’s lack of laboratory resources. In fact, Antoni paid for laboratory reagents with her own credit card, while Kohn wrote his own grants and subscribed to well-known biology journals out of his own pocket because journal access was not available through Kutztown.

These challenges shaped Kohn as an experimental biologist, requiring him to precisely understand the mechanisms of experimental techniques in order to reconstruct them in the most creative and inexpensive ways possible. Perhaps most importantly, this small-college experience cultivated Kohn’s persistent curiosity.

Diving into cancer research

In his current position at the Jacks Lab, Kohn studies cancer immunotherapy, the use of a cancer patient’s own immune system to fight cancer cells. To do this, Kohn uses a mouse model of lung cancer that mimics the natural development of human cancer: Mutations identical to those found in many human cancers are triggered in the mouse, causing a tumor to arise that originates from the mouse’s own cells. These mice, like human cancer patients, have an immune system that can recognize the cancer as aberrant. Kohn’s work focuses modifying mouse immune cells to identify and attack a tumor.

Kohn is excited by the translational potential of his work, but also eagerly defends basic research at MIT when he encounters skepticism about its practicality in his conservative hometown.

Kohn often draws on metaphors in these types of conversations. He may leverage car talk, for example, to explain why there will never be a single cure for cancer: “So your ‘check engine’ light always presents the same way … but there’s literally a multitude of different things that can [cause] it. It could be a loose gas cap for the evaporative emissions system that set it off, it could be a misfire because of a bad spark plug, it could be a catalytic converter.”

Likewise, cancer can be caused by many possible biological errors that lead to an overgrowth of cells, Kohn explains. “So just like there will never be a cure for ‘check engine light,’ there will never be a [single] cure for cancer.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Kohn embraces the scientific freedom of the research in his lab. His advisor, Tyler Jacks, director of the Koch Institute, an HHMI investigator, and a David H. Koch Professor of Biology at MIT, is frequently in high demand, but Kohn says he has felt fully supported in his work — including in the bold ideas and unconventional projects he undertakes in his free time.

Jacks remains accessible despite his busy schedule, according to Kohn, and his emphasis on mentorship has inspired the postdocs in the lab to mentor the graduate students. The Jacks Lab also enjoys a thriving social environment. Kohn regularly attends casual weekend parties held by his labmates, and every other year Jacks organizes a cross-campus themed scavenger hunt for which the whole lab dresses in elaborate costumes.

“Real conversations about ideas”

Outside of lab, Kohn calls himself a homebody and prefers to relax after a full day, often with a beer and a movie. He spends much of this down time with his partner Ruthlyn, whether they are exploring the Boston area or talking with friends and colleagues at local pubs.

Kohn speaks about these conversations with genuine excitement: “You meet so many different people, every religion, every gender identity, every country, every language, and you just meet these people and you get to have these cool conversations … these real conversations about ideas. Because that’s really what you want, right?”

He enthusiastically notes that, in contrast to his largely homogenous hometown, more than 200 countries are represented at MIT. Kohn says the diversity and ideals of MIT reflect his own worldview.

Despite his deep sense of belonging on campus, leaving home did lay an exceptional burden on Kohn: Twelve-year-old Jayden remains in Pennsylvania with his mother, over 300 miles away.

Kohn speaks about his son with immense pride, describing Jayden as not only an extremely talented baseball player, but as a positive, energetic, and deeply mature young person. Kohn recounts with admiration, and a trace of relief, that despite the difficulty of the distance, Jayden said his father’s coming to MIT was the right thing to do.

As for his own parents, Kohn finally feels that all the headaches he has given them over the years have been worthwhile. His intense desire for knowledge has driven him through many obstacles, connected him with like minds from all over the world, and still shows no signs of waning.

Kohn has a reputation in his lab for asking questions, big and small. Asked if he’s ever afraid to admit what he doesn’t know, he says no: “I want to know … and that’s really what it comes down to.”

Celebrating a decade of interdisciplinary microbiology

The Microbiology Graduate PhD Program spans 50 labs across 10 departments and divisions, offering a broad approach to microbial science and engineering.

Raleigh McElvery | Department of Biology
December 12, 2017

Ten years ago, MIT launched the Microbiology Graduate PhD Program. Today, it boasts 28 alumni and 33 current students, and offers a broad, interdisciplinary approach to microbial science and engineering. Between five and eight trainees enroll each year and can choose among more than 50 labs spanning 10 departments and divisions — from biology and biological engineering to chemical engineering and physics.

Many diverse disciplines are rooted in microbiology. Basic scientists use microorganisms as model systems to understand fundamental biological processes. Engineers leverage microorganisms to create new manufacturing processes and energy sources. Even ecologists, biomedical researchers, and earth scientists dedicate their careers to investigating the role of microbes in our ecosystems, on our bodies, and on our planet. In sum, the study of microbiology permeates so many research areas that no single department at MIT could house them all.

The idea for an interdisciplinary microbiology program first came to Alan Grossman, head of the Department of Biology, while he was recovering from a heart transplant back in 2006.

“There were people scattered all over MIT who were doing microbial science and engineering, but there was no mechanism to connect them or give students outside those departments easy access to the labs,” Grossman says. “I began by talking to a few faculty members in order to gauge general interest, before pitching it to a handful of department heads and forming a committee. Everyone was very excited about it, and it really grew from the ground up.”

The Committee on Graduate Programs approved his proposal in May 2007, and the first cohort of eight students began in the fall of 2008. Martin Polz, co-director since 2015 and professor of civil and environmental engineering, sat on Grossman’s initial committee.

“MIT’s program is unique from most other microbiology programs because it’s so interdisciplinary,” Polz says. “Many microbiology programs across the country are associated with medical schools and focused primarily on pathogenesis. The students who apply here really appreciate the breadth of our program, and it has become a fixture at MIT over the years.”

Kristala Prather, co-director since 2013 and professor of chemical engineering, said the program also provides an opportunity to bring life scientists and engineers together to tackle research questions.

“I find there is a difference in the way engineers and scientists approach research problems,” Prather says. “Each approach has rigor, but having both perspectives breeds a richer set of discussions than just hearing from one discipline alone.”

During the past 10 years, Prather has watched a thriving and diverse community unite, spurred by a common interest in the microbial world.

Nathaniel Chu, who matriculated in 2014, said the program allows him to sample different disciplines while still maintaining a close affiliation with his advisor’s home department, Biological Engineering. As part of Eric Alm’s lab, Chu studies the interaction between the gut microbiome and immune system, and how imbalances in that delicate relationship can trigger conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, obesity, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“The program provides flexibility to explore your research interests, and my advisor has given me a lot of space to conceive and manage my own projects,” Chu says. “I’ve been able to interact with a diverse set of individuals within the microbiology circle, including clinical partners, immunologists, geneticists, bioinformaticians, and computational biologists.”

Jacquin Niles, incoming co-director, was a junior faculty member in Department of Biological Engineering when Grossman first proposed the idea. He says the students — past and present — are the heart of the program.

“A lot has changed over the 10 years the program has been in existence, but the caliber of students has remained consistent,” Niles says. “If I had to emphasize any particular aspect of the program, the students would be numbers one, two, and three. Each generation has been exceptional, and they are all very much on top of their research game.”

Michael Laub, co-director from 2012 to 2015 and professor of biology, adds that the early students deserve much credit for the program’s success. “They took a chance on a brand-new initiative, and as a result we ended up attracting ambitious, risk-taking, and creative folks who really paved the way for current students,” he says.

Alumni pursue a variety of careers, ranging from academia to industry. Some join existing institutions or companies. Others start their own.

Mark Smith PhD ’14 was a member of the second graduating class. Like Chu, he was one of Alm’s advisees, studying networks of gene exchange within the human microbiome, and building statistical models to determine the role of environment in various gut-related diseases. Smith went on to co-found a nonprofit organization known as OpenBiome, harnessing the microbiome to cure recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. In 2016, he co-founded another company, Finch Therapeutics Group, focused on scaling and commercializing clinical treatments for diseases rooted in the microbiome. In 2017, he was named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 list for science.

“OpenBiome and Finch Therapeutics were really a translation of the initial work that was done through the microbiology program, and a step toward developing those tools to improve human health,” Smith says. “The program taught me the foundational work I’ve come to rely on in almost every aspect of my job today.”

Like Smith, Jacob Rubens PhD ’16 aims to apply his training at MIT to help develop new products. After working in Timothy Lu’s lab — straddling the realms of biological engineering and electrical engineering — Rubens joined Flagship Pioneering, a company that starts, funds, and runs breakthrough biotechnology startups in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Rubens was also named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 list for science in 2017.

During the six years that Rubens was at MIT, he watched the microbiology cohort grow from roughly 20 to a force permeating more labs across campus than he could count.

“It’s heartwarming to see people bringing a microbiological perspective into all these different spaces, and influencing cutting-edge research across the Institute,” he says. “As a microbiology student, you become an integrator and synthesizer of many different viewpoints, and a node to foster cross-talk between disciplines.”

As Niles prepares to assume the role of co-director in July 2018 and usher in the program’s second decade, he intends to maintain its integrity and structure.

“The program has matured into what it is today thanks to a lot of previous, careful thought,” he says. “The students have indicated that there is a lot of value in the structure that we’ve refined over the years, and so my goal is to continue that positive momentum.”

Researchers establish long-sought source of ocean methane

An abundant enzyme in marine microbes may be responsible for production of the greenhouse gas.

Anne Trafton | MIT News Office
December 7, 2017

Industrial and agricultural activities produce large amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Many bacteria also produce methane as a byproduct of their metabolism. Some of this naturally released methane comes from the ocean, a phenomenon that has long puzzled scientists because there are no known methane-producing organisms living near the ocean’s surface.

A team of researchers from MIT and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has made a discovery that could help to answer this “ocean methane paradox.” First, they identified the structure of an enzyme that can produce a compound that is known to be converted to methane. Then, they used that information to show that this enzyme exists in some of the most abundant marine microbes. They believe that this compound is likely the source of methane gas being released into the atmosphere above the ocean.

Ocean-produced methane represents around 4 percent of the total that’s discharged into the atmosphere, and a better understanding of where this methane is coming from could help scientists better account for its role in climate change, the researchers say.

“Understanding the global carbon cycle is really important, especially when talking about climate change,” says Catherine Drennan, an MIT professor of chemistry and biology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. “Where is methane really coming from? How is it being used? Understanding nature’s flux is important information to have in all of those discussions.”

Drennan and Wilfred van der Donk, a professor of chemistry at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, are the senior authors of the paper, which appears in the Dec. 7 online edition of Science. Lead authors are David Born, a graduate student at MIT and Harvard University, and Emily Ulrich, a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Solving the mystery

Many bacteria produce methane as a byproduct of their metabolism, but most of these bacteria live in oxygen-poor environments such as the deep ocean or the digestive tract of animals — not near the ocean’s surface.

Several years ago, van der Donk and University of Illinois colleague William Metcalf found a possible clue to the mystery of ocean methane: They discovered a microbial enzyme that produces a compound called methylphosphonate, which can become methane when a phosphate molecule is cleaved from it. This enzyme was found in a microbe called Nitrosopumilus maritimus, which lives near the ocean surface, but the enzyme was not readily identified in other ocean microbes as one would have expected it to be.

Van der Donk’s team knew the genetic sequence of the enzyme, known as methylphosphonate synthase (MPnS), which allowed them to search for other versions of it in the genomes of other microbes. However, every time they found a potential match, the enzyme turned out to be a related enzyme called hydroxyethylphosphonate dioxygenase (HEPD), which generates a product that is very similar to methylphosphonate but cannot be cleaved to produce methane.

Van der Donk asked Drennan, an expert in determining chemical structures of proteins, if she could try to reveal the structure of MPnS, in hopes that it would help them find more variants of the enzyme in other bacteria.

To find the structure, the MIT team used X-ray crystallography, which they performed in a special chamber with no oxygen. They knew that the enzyme requires oxygen to catalyze the production of methylphosphonate, so by eliminating oxygen they were able to get snapshots of the enzyme as it bound to the necessary reaction partners but before it performed the reaction.

The researchers compared the crystallography data from MPnS with the related HEPD enzyme and found one small but critical difference. In the active site of both enzymes (the part of the protein that catalyzes chemical reactions), there is an amino acid called glutamine. In MPnS, this glutamine molecule binds to iron, a necessary cofactor for the production of methylphosphonate. The glutamine is fixed in an iron-binding orientation by the bulky amino acid isoleucine, which is directly below the glutamine in MPnS. However, in HEPD, the isoleucine is replaced by glycine, and the glutamine is free to rearrange so that it is no longer bound to iron.

“We were looking for differences that would lead to different products, and that was the only difference that we saw,” Born says. Furthermore, the researchers found that changing the glycine in HEPD to isoleucine was sufficient to convert the enzyme to an MPnS.

An abundant enzyme

By searching databases of genetic sequences from thousands of microbes, the researchers found hundreds of enzymes with the same structural configuration seen in their original MPnS enzyme. Furthermore, all of these were found in microbes that live in the ocean, and one was found in a strain of an extremely abundant ocean microbe known as Pelagibacter ubique.

“This exciting result builds on previous, related studies showing that the metabolism of the methylphosphonate can lead to the formation of methane in the oxygenated ocean. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas with poorly understood sources and sinks in the surface ocean, the results of this study will serve to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the methylphosphonate cycle in nature,” says David Karl, a professor of oceanography at the University of Hawaii, who was not involved in the research.

It is still unknown what function the MPnS enzyme and its product serve in ocean bacteria. Methylphosphonates are believed to be incorporated into fatty molecules called phosphonolipids, which are similar to the phospholipids that make up cell membranes.

“The function of these phosphonolipids is not well-established, although they’ve been known to be around for decades. That’s a really interesting question to ask,” Born says. “Now we know they’re being produced in large quantities, especially in the ocean, but we don’t actually know what they do or how they benefit the organism at all.”

Another key question is how the production of methane by these organisms is influenced by environmental conditions in the ocean, including temperature and pollution such as fertilizer runoff.

“We know that methylphosphonate cleavage occurs when microbes are starved for phosphorus, but we need to figure out what nutrients are connected to this, and how is that connected to the pH of the ocean, and how is it connected to temperature of the ocean,” Drennan says. “We need all of that information to be able to think about what we’re doing, so we can make intelligent decisions about protecting the oceans.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.