Placement: Promote to Homepage

Gene-Wei Li named 2024 HHMI Investigator

HHMI award will help Department of Biology faculty unravel the mysteries of precision gene expression across the proteome

Noah Daly | Department of Biology
July 23, 2024

To better understand how cells precisely control the levels of their proteins, Associate Professor Gene-Wei Li utilizes rigorous quantitative analysis to improve our molecular understandings of life. With the support he’ll receive as an HHMI Investigator, Li will explore how genomes are sculpted to allow lifeforms to survive in a competitive environment.

As versatile and durable as cells are, their every function depends on producing precise quantities of proteins. These proteins enable the cells to perform their functions, their organelles to work, and tell the cells when to grow or decompose. Without precise instructions for how much protein they need to generate, organisms would struggle to self-regulate efficiently, rendering them incapable of becoming competitive life forms. These “recipes” for protein production are written into the genetic code of all life. Recent advances in DNA sequencing have identified every protein an organism can produce–every “ingredient” in the genetic cookbook. Despite these significant advances, researchers still don’t know how to read the instructions. 

Since opening his lab at MIT in 2015, Associate Professor of Biology Gene-Wei Li has been working, among other things, on quantifying the amount of proteins cells produce and how that process is orchestrated within the cell. 

“The goal that we hope to achieve,” Li says, “is to read the genomic sequence and accurately tell you not just what types of proteins are made, but also how many of them will be made.” 

Li was recently named a 2024 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, one of 26 newly appointed Investigators hailing from 19 institutions. Each HHMI Investigator will receive roughly $11 million in support over a seven-year term, potentially renewable indefinitely. This support includes their full salary and benefits, a generous research budget, scientific equipment, and additional resources. 

“I feel grateful for the extremely supportive environment in my department,” Li says. “This award is also a recognition for the hard work and risk-taking by my lab’s current and past trainees.” 

Other MIT School of Science faculty joining the 2024 cohort include Mary Gehring, Professor of Biology and Core Member and David Baltimore Chair in Biomedical Research at the Whitehead Institute; Steven Flavell, Associate Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and Investigator in the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory; and Mehrdad Jazayeri, Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the McGovern Institute.  

Of the nearly 1,000 researchers who applied to be HHMI investigators this year, successful applicants were selected for their singular accomplishments in scientific research. They receive extensive resources to continue their work at their home institution. HHMI enables scientists to pursue their work with extraordinary freedom, allowing them to expand their current efforts, pivot focus as needed, and execute original ideas. 

One of the hallmarks of Li’s lab is the devoted attention he gives to his students. Each member of the lab receives extensive guidance and mentorship, enabling them to pursue careers in science while sharing their ideas and concerns with fellow lab members and Li. For this inclusive culture, Li was honored by MIT as “Committed to Caring” for 2020-2021. 

“When scientists create environments in which others can thrive, we all benefit,” says HHMI President Erin O’Shea. “These newest HHMI Investigators are extraordinary, not only because of their outstanding research endeavors but also because they mentor and empower the next generation of scientists to work alongside them at the cutting edge.”  

In his lab, Li has emphasized the interweaving of individual achievement and the success of the group, creating a space for lab members to learn from one another, freely question their principal investigator, and ultimately make breakthroughs together. 

Discovery through Collaboration 

While Li’s lab was built around the question of quantifying a cell’s protein synthesis–that is, the amounts of all the proteins produced in a cell—his background is in physics. He approaches his work by making quantitative and systematic measurements (mainly with high-throughput DNA sequencing tools) and using that information to uncover fundamental molecular mechanisms in gene expression. 

The Li lab’s early work utilizing this methodology demonstrated that proteins that go on to form complexes are made in the correct ratios to immediately form complexes with few extra copies. 

Li’s team went on to discover that metabolic proteins are synthesized at precise ratios that are conserved across evolutionarily distant species, such as the two bacterial model organisms E. coli and B. subtilis. However, despite their shared output of protein production, the billions of years of evolution gave rise to two completely different ways to control protein quantity. 

In 2020, this line of research produced a study that contradicted the longstanding dogma of molecular biology that the machinery of protein synthesis and RNA polymerase work side by side in bacteria, which it does in E coli. 

According to Li, two of his graduate student researchers found that, in B. subtilis, the ribosome lags far behind RNA polymerase, a process the lab termed “runaway transcription.” They found that the coordination between transcription and translation is fundamentally different between E. coli and B. subtilis. They then identified bioinformatic signatures, revealing that this kind of uncoupling between transcription and translation is widespread across many species of bacteria. The students, Grace Johnson, a former graduate student in the Department of Biology, and Jean-Benoît Lalanne, a former graduate student in the Department of Physics, were the lead authors of the paper, which appeared in Nature. 

 “This is very exciting stuff, but all the credit goes to my grad students,” Li chuckles. 

Finding the Room to Be Bold 

The support from Howard Hughes Medical Institute enables Li and his team the flexibility to pursue the basic research that leads to discoveries. 

“Having this award really allows us to be bold and to do things at a scale that wasn’t possible before. The discovery of runaway transcription is a great example of this,” Li says.  

Li plans on using the funds made available from HHMI to help determine how functionally related genes differ in their expression and how signals are encoded in the genome at the DNA and RNA levels. According to Li, the collection of high-quality and system-wide data is essential to making discoveries in his field. 

“I’m incredibly grateful to HHMI for encouraging us to pursue this work and follow the science wherever it leads us,” he says. 

Li and his team are as eager as ever to understand life’s coded cookbook. 

“The work of science begins with great people,” Li says. “This award will help ensure our lab continues to be a place where incredible young scientists can work together to achieve miraculous things.” 

Gene silencing tool has a need for speed

Small changes in the molecular machines that carry out RNA interference can lead to big differences in the efficacy of gene silencing. These new findings from the Bartel Lab have implications for the design of gene-silencing therapeutics.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
July 17, 2024

RNA interference (RNAi) is a process that many organisms, including humans, use to decrease the activity of target RNAs in cells by triggering their degradation or slicing them in half. If the target is a messenger RNA, the intermediary between gene and protein, then RNAi can decrease or completely silence expression of the gene. Researchers figured out how to tailor RNAi to target different RNAs, and since then it has been used as a research tool to silence genes of interest. RNAi is also used in a growing number of therapeutics to silence genes that contribute to disease.

However, researchers still do not understand some of the biochemistry underlying RNAi. Slight differences in the design of the RNAi machinery can lead to big differences in how effective it is at decreasing gene expression. Through trial and error, researchers have worked out guidelines for making the most effective RNAi tools without understanding exactly why they work. However, Whitehead Institute Member David Bartel and graduate student in his lab Peter Wang have now dug deeper to figure out the mechanics of the main cellular machine involved in RNAi. The researchers’ findings, shared in Molecular Cell on July 17, not only provide explanations for some of the known rules for RNAi tool design, but also provide new insights that could improve future designs.

Slicing speed is highly variable

The cellular machine that carries out RNAi has two main parts. One is a guide RNA, a tiny RNA typically only 22 bases or nucleotides long. RNA, like DNA, is made of four possible bases, although RNA has the base uracil (U) instead of the DNA base thymine (T). RNA bases bind to each other in certain pairings—guanines (G) pair to cytosines (C) and adenines (A) pair to U’s—and the sequence of bases in the guide RNA corresponds to a complementary sequence within the target RNA. When the guide RNA comes across a target, the corresponding bases pair up, binding the RNAs. Then the other part of the RNAi machine, an Argonaute protein bound to the guide RNA, can slice the target RNA in half or trigger the cell to break it down more gradually.

In humans, AGO2 is the Argonaute protein that is best at slicing. Only a couple dozen RNA targets actually get sliced, but these few targets play essential roles in processes such as neuron signal control and accurate body shape formation. Slicing is also important for RNAi tools and therapeutics.

In order for AGO2 to slice its target, the target must be in the exact right position. As the guide and target RNAs bind together, they go through a series of motions to ultimately form a double helix. Only in that configuration can AGO2 slice the target.

Researchers had assumed that AGO2 slices through different target RNAs at roughly the same rate, because most research into this process used the same few guide RNAs. These guide RNAs happen to have similar features, and so similar slicing kinetics—but they turn out not to be representative of most guide RNAs.

Wang paired AGO2 with a larger variety of guide RNAs and measured the rate at which each AGO2-guide RNA complex sliced its targets. He found big differences. Whereas the commonly used guide RNAs might differ in their slicing rate by 2-fold, the larger pool of guide RNAs differed by as much as 250-fold. The slicing rates were often much slower than the researchers expected. Previously, researchers thought that all targets could be sliced relatively quickly, so the rate wasn’t considered as a limiting factor – other parts of the process were thought to determine the overall pace – but Wang found that slicing can sometimes be the slowest step.

“The important consideration is whether the slicing rate is faster or slower than other processes in the cell,” Wang says. “We found that for many guide RNAs, the slicing rate was the limiting factor. As such, it impacted the efficacy.”

The slower AGO2 is to slice targets, the more messenger RNAs will remain intact to be made into protein, meaning that the corresponding gene will continue being expressed. The researchers observed this in action: the guide RNAs with slower slicing rates decreased target gene expression by less than the faster ones.

Small changes lead to big differences in slicing rate

Next, the researchers explored what could be causing such big differences in slicing rate between guide RNAs. They mutated guide RNAs to swap out single bases along the guide RNA’s sequence—say, switching the 10th base in the sequence from a C to an A—and measured how this changed the slicing rate.

“The important consideration is whether the slicing rate is faster or slower than other processes in the cell,” Wang says. “We found that for many guide RNAs, the slicing rate was the limiting factor. As such, it impacted the efficacy.”

The researchers found that slicing rate increased when the base at position 7 was an A or a U. The bases A and U pair more weakly than C and G. The researchers found that having a weak A-U pair at that position, or a fully mismatched pair at position 6 or 7, may allow a kink to form in the double helix shape that actually makes the target easier to slice. Wang also found that slicing rate increases with certain substitutions at the 10th and the 17th base positions, although the researchers could not yet determine possible underlying mechanisms.

These observations correspond to existing recommendations for RNAi design, such as not using a G at position 7. The new work demonstrates that the reason these recommendations work is because they affect the slicing rate, and, in the case of position 7, the new work further identifies the specific mechanism at play.

Interplay between regions matters

People designing synthetic guide RNAs thought that the bases at the tail end, past the 16th position, were not very important. This is because in the case of the most commonly used guide RNAs, the target will be rapidly cleaved even if all of the tail end positions are mismatches that cannot pair.

However, Wang and Bartel found that the identity of the tail end bases are only irrelevant in a specific scenario that happens to be true of the most commonly used guide RNAs: when the bases in the center of the guide RNA (positions 9-12) are strong-pairing Cs and Gs. When the center pairings are weak, then the tail end bases need to be perfect matches to the target RNA. The researchers found that guide RNAs could have up to a 600-fold difference in tolerance for tail end mismatches based on the strength of their central pairings.

The reason for this difference has to do with the final set of motions that the two RNAs must perform in order to assume their final double helix shape. A perfectly paired tail end makes it easier for the RNAs to complete these motions. However, a strong enough center can pull the RNAs into the double helix even if the tail ends are not ideally suited for doing so.

The observation that weak central pairing requires perfect or near perfect tail end matches could provide a useful new guideline for designing synthetic RNAs. Any guide RNA runs the risk of sometimes binding other messenger RNAs that are similar enough to the intended target RNA. In the case of a therapy, this off-target binding can lead to negative side effects. Bartel and Wang suggest that researchers could design guide RNAs with weak centers, which would require more perfect pairing in the tail end, so that the guide RNA will be less likely to bind non-target RNAs; only the perfect pairing of the target’s RNA sequence would suffice.

Altogether, Wang and Bartel’s findings explain how small differences between guide RNAs can make such large differences in the efficacy of RNAi, providing a rationale for the long-standing RNAi design guidelines. Some of the findings even suggest new guidelines that could help with future synthetic guide RNA designs.

“Discovering the interplay between the center and tail end of the guide RNA was unexpected and satisfying,” says Bartel, who is also a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator. “It explains why, even though the guidelines suggested that tail-end sequence doesn’t matter, the target RNAs that are sliced in our cells do have pairing to the tail end. This observation could prove useful to reduce off-target effects in RNAi therapeutics.”

A genome-wide screen in live hosts reveals new secrets of parasite infection

Researchers in the Lourido Lab performed the first genome-wide screen of Toxoplasma gondii in live hosts, revealing genes that are important for infection but previously undetected in cell culture experiments. 

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
July 8, 2024

Apicomplexan parasites are a common cause of disease, infecting hundreds of millions of people each year. They are responsible for spreading malaria; cryptosporidiosis – a severe childhood diarrheal disease; and toxoplasmosis – a disease that endangers immune compromised people and fetuses, and is the reason why pregnant women are told to avoid changing cat litter. Apicomplexan parasites are very good at infecting humans and many other animals, and persisting inside of them. The more that researchers can learn about how apicomplexans infect hosts, the better they will be able to develop effective treatments against the parasites.

To this end, researchers in Whitehead Institute Member Sebastian Lourido’s lab, led by graduate student Christopher Giuliano, have now completed a genome-wide screen of the apicomplexan parasite Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii), which causes toxoplasmosis, during its infection of mice. This screen shows how important each gene is for the parasite’s ability to infect a host, providing clues to genes’ functions. In the journal Nature Microbiology on July 8, the researchers share their approach for tracing lineages of parasites in a live host, and some specific findings of interest—including a possible anti-parasitic drug target.

From dish to animal

Researchers in Lourido’s lab previously developed a screen to test the function of every T. gondii gene in cells in a dish in 2016. They used CRISPR gene editing technology to make mutant parasites in which each lineage had one gene inactivated. The researchers could then assess the importance of each gene to a parasite’s fitness, or ability to thrive, based on how well the mutants missing that gene did. If a mutant died off, this implied that its inactivated gene is essential for the parasite’s survival.

This screen taught the researchers a lot about T. gondii’s biology but faced a common limitation: the parasites were studied in a dish rather than a live host. Cell culture provides an easier way to study parasites, but the conditions are not the same as what parasites face in an animal host. A host’s body is a more complex and dynamic environment, so it may require parasites to rely on genes that they don’t need in the artificial setting of cell culture.

To overcome this limitation, researchers in Lourido’s lab figured out how to repeat the T. gondii genome-wide screen, which their colleagues in the lab had previously done in cell culture, in live mice. This was a massive undertaking, which required solving various technical challenges and running a large number of parallel experiments. T. gondii has around eight thousand genes, so the researchers performed pooled experiments, with each mouse getting infected by many different mutants—but not so many as to overwhelm the mouse. This meant that the researchers needed a way to more closely monitor the trajectories of mutants in the mouse. They needed to track the lineages of parasites that carried the same mutation over time, as this would allow them to see how different replicate lineages of a particular mutant performed.

“This is an outstanding resource,” says Lourido. “The results of the screen reveal such a broader spectrum of ways in which the parasites are interacting with hosts, and enrich our perception of the parasites’ abilities and vulnerabilities.”
The researchers added barcodes to the CRISPR tools that inactivated a gene of interest in the parasite. When they harvested the parasites’ descendants, the barcode would identify the lineage, distinguishing replicate parasites that had been mutated in the same way. This allowed the researchers to use a population-based analytical approach to rule out false results and decrease experimental noise. Then they could draw conclusions about how well each lineage did. Lineage tracing allowed them to map how different populations of parasites traveled throughout the host’s body, and whether some populations grew better in one organ versus another.

The researchers found 237 genes that contribute to the parasite’s fitness more in a live host than in cell culture. Many of these were not previously known to be important for the parasite’s fitness. The genes identified in the current screen are active in different parts of the parasite, and affect diverse aspects of its interactions with a host. The researchers also found instances in which parasite fitness in a live host increased when a gene was inactivated; these genes may be, for example, related to signals that the host immune system uses to detect the parasites. Next, the researchers followed up on several of the fitness-improving genes that stuck out as of particular interest.

Genes that make the difference in a live host

One gene that stuck out was GTP cyclohydrolase I (GCH), which codes for an enzyme involved in the production of the essential nutrient folate. Apicomplexans rely on folate, and so the researchers wanted to understand GCH’s role in securing it for the parasite. Cell culture media contains high levels of folate, and in this nutrient-rich environment, GCH is not essential. However, in a live mouse, the parasite must both scavenge folate and synthesize it using the metabolic pathway containing GCH. Lourido and Giuliano uncovered new details of how that pathway works.

Although previously GCH’s role was not fully understood, the importance of folate for apicomplexans is a well-known vulnerability that has been used to design anti-parasitic therapies. The anti-folate drug pyrimethamine was commonly used to treat malaria, but many parasites have developed resistance to it.

Some drug-resistant apicomplexans have increased the number of GCH gene copies that they have, suggesting that they may be using GCH-mediated folate synthesis to overcome pyrimethamine. The researchers found that combining a GCH inhibitor with pyrimethamine increased the efficacy of the drug against the parasites. The GCH inhibitor was also effective on its own. Unfortunately, the currently available GCH inhibitor targets mammalian as well as parasitic folate pathways, and so is not safe for use in animals. Giuliano and colleagues are working on developing a GCH inhibitor that is parasite-specific as a possible therapy.

“There was an entire half of the folate metabolism pathway that previously looked like it wasn’t important for parasites, simply because people add so much folate to cell culture media,” Giuliano says. “This is a good example of what can be missed in cell culture experiments, and what’s particularly exciting is that the finding has led us to a new drug candidate.”

Another gene of interest was RASP1. The researchers determined that RASP1 is not involved in initial infection attempts, but is needed if the parasites fail and need to mount a second attempt. They found that RASP1 is needed to reload an organelle of the parasites called a rhoptry that the parasites use to breach and reprogram host cells. Without RASP1, the parasites could only deploy one set of rhoptries, and so could only attempt one invasion.

Identifying the function of RASP1 in infection also demonstrated the importance of studying how parasites interact with different cell types. In cell culture, researchers typically culture parasites in fibroblasts, a connective tissue cell. The researchers found that parasites could invade fibroblasts with or without RASP1, suggesting that this cell type is easy for them to invade. However, when the parasites tried to invade macrophages, an immune cell, those without RASP1 often failed, suggesting that macrophages present the parasites with more of a challenge, requiring multiple attempts. The screen uncovered other probable cell-type specific pathways, which would not have been found using only model cell types in a dish.

The screen also highlighted a previously unnamed gene that the researchers are calling GRA72. Previous studies suggested that this gene plays a role in the vacuole or protective envelope that the parasite forms around itself. The Lourido lab researchers confirmed this, and discovered additional details of how the absence of GRA72 disrupts the parasite vacuole.

A rich resource for the future

Lourido, Giuliano, and colleagues hope that their findings will provide new insights into parasite biology and, especially in the case of GCH, lead to new therapies. They intend to continue pulling from the treasure trove of results—their screen identified many other genes of interest that require follow-up—to learn more about apicomplexan parasites and their interactions with mammalian hosts. Lourido says that other researchers in his lab have already used the results of the screen to guide them towards relevant genes and pathways in their own projects.

“This is an outstanding resource,” says Lourido, who is also an associate professor of biology at MIT. “The results of the screen reveal such a broader spectrum of ways in which the parasites are interacting with hosts, and enrich our perception of the parasites’ abilities and vulnerabilities.”

Brady Weissbourd named Searle Scholar

With an eye on regenerative medicine, Weissbourd's lab will study how jellyfish manage to constantly integrate new neurons into their nervous system.

David Orenstein | The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
July 8, 2024

Scientists who dream of a future in which regenerative medicine has advanced enough to enable repairs in human nervous systems currently have more questions than answers. As a recently named Searle Scholar, MIT Assistant Professor Brady Weissbourd will seek to learn some of the needed fundamentals by studying a master of neural regeneration: the jellyfish, Clytia hemisphaerica.

Weissbourd, a faculty member in the Department of Biology and The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, has helped to pioneer use of the seafaring species in neuroscience research for many reasons. It is transparent for easy imaging, reproduces rapidly, and shares many basic nervous system properties with mammals despite diverging evolutionarily 600 million years ago (just after the development of the earliest nervous systems). Meanwhile, with about 10,000 neurons, the jellyfish fills a gap in the field in terms of that degree of complexity.

But what Weissbourd didn’t appreciate until he began experimenting with the jellyfish was that they are also incredibly good at refreshing and rebuilding their nervous systems with new cells. After becoming the first researcher to develop the ability to genetically manipulate the organism, he started teasing out how its highly distributed nervous system (there is no central brain), was organized to enable its many behaviors. When he ablated a subnetwork of cells to test whether it was indeed responsible for a particular feeding behavior, he found that within a week it had completely regrown. Moreover, he has observed that the jellyfish constantly produce and integrate new cells, even in the absence of major injury.

Looking for the logic

The finding raised a proverbial boatload of intriguing questions that his support of $100,000 a year for the next three years from the Searle Scholars Program will help him pursue.

“Where are these newborn neurons coming from in both the normal and regenerative contexts?” Weissbourd asked. “What rules guide them to the correct locations to rebuild these networks, both to integrate these newborn neurons into the network without messing it up and also to recreate it during regeneration? Are the rules the same or different between these contexts?”

Additionally, by using a combination of techniques such as imaging neural activity during behavior, sequencing gene expression cell by cell, and computational modeling, Weissbourd’s lab has discerned that within their web-like mesh of neurons, jellyfish harbor more than a dozen different functional subnetworks that enable its variety of different behaviors. Can all the subnetworks regenerate? If not, why do some forgo the remarkable ability? Among those that do regenerate, do they all do so the same way? If they employ different means, then learning what those are could provide multiple answers to the question of how new neurons can successfully integrate into existing neural networks.

Building on support provided by a Klingenstein-Simons Fellowship Weissbourd earned last year, he’ll be able to pursue experiments designed to understand the “logic” of how jellyfish manage neural regeneration.

“The ability to understand how nervous systems regenerate has significant implications for regenerative medicine,” Weissbourd said.

A complete 3D ‘wiring diagram’

As part of the new award, Weissbourd also plans to create a major new resource for jellyfish neurobiology to advance not only this project, but also the research of any other scientist who wants to study the organism. Working with collaborator Jeff Lichtman, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University, Weissbourd will create a complete 3D reconstruction of a jellyfish’s nervous system at the subcellular resolution enabled by electron microscopy. The resource, which Weissbourd plans to provide openly online, will amount to a full “wiring diagram” of a jellyfish where every circuit connection can be mapped.

Being able to see how every neural circuit is constructed in a whole animal will enable Weissbourd to answer questions about how the circuits are built and therefore how new neurons integrate. Having a complete and detailed view of every circuit will improve the computational models his lab is building to predict how anatomy helps give rise to function and behavior. And given that new neurons are being born, migrating and integrating all the time, Weissbourd said, the imaging will also likely yield a snapshot of neural regeneration in action in its many stages.

Weissbourd said he was grateful for the honor of being named a Searle Scholar, which not only provides support for his lab’s work, but also welcomes him into a new community of young scientists.

“I’m honored and super excited,” Weissbourd said. “I’m excited to interact with the other scholars as well.”

 

“Vaults” within germ cells offer more than safekeeping

Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) granules are believed to preserve maternal mRNA within eggs and developing embryos. The Lehman Lab reveals that a specific type of RNP granule also plays an active role in translating the mRNA that is crucial for specifying germ cells.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
July 2, 2024

Maternal messenger RNAs (mRNAs), located within the cytoplasm of an immature egg, are crucial for jump starting development. Following fertilization, these mRNAs are passed onto the zygote, the first newly formed cell. Having been read from the maternal DNA genetic code, they serve as the sole templates for protein production essential for early development until the zygote’s own genes become active and take over.

Many maternal mRNAs are stored in ribonucleoprotein (RNP) granules, which are a type of membrane-less compartments, or condensates, within eggs and developing embryos. These granules are believed to preserve the mRNA in a “paused” state until the encoded proteins are needed for specific developmental processes upon fertilization of the egg cell. Then, certain developmental signals kick in to instruct the RNP granules to release the stored mRNA so the instructions can be translated into a functional protein.

One type of RNP granules called germ granules is found in embryo germplasm, a cytoplasmic region that gives rise to germ cells, which become the eggs or sperms of adult flies. Whitehead Institute Director Ruth Lehmann studies how germ cells form and transmit their genetic information across generations. Her lab is particularly interested in understanding how germ granules in embryos localize and regulate maternal mRNAs.

Now, Lehmann, along with graduate student Ruoyu Chen and colleagues, has uncovered that the role of germ granules in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) extends beyond safeguarding maternal mRNAs. Their findings, published in the journal Nature Cell Biology on July 4, demonstrate that germ granules also play an active role in translating, or making into protein, a specific maternal mRNA, called nanos, crucial for specifying germ cells and the abdomen of the organism.

“Traditionally, scientists have thought of RNP granules as a dead zone for translation,” says Chen. “But through high-resolution imaging, we’ve challenged this notion and shown that the surface of these granules is actually a platform for translation of nanos mRNA.”

RNP granules act as vaults

Within a developing embryo, various fate-determining proteins dictate whether a cell will become a muscle, nerve, or skin cell in a fully-formed body. Nanos, a gene with conserved function in Drosophila and humans, guides the production of Nanos protein which instructs cells to develop into germline. Mutations in the nanos gene cause sterility in animals.

During early embryonic development, Nanos protein also helps establish the body plan of the fruit fly embryo — it specifies the posterior end or abdominal region, and guides the ordered development of tissues along the length of the body, from head to tail. In embryos with impaired Nanos function, the consequences are fatal.

“When Nanos protein isn’t functioning properly, the fruit fly embryos are really short,” says Chen. “This is because the embryo has no abdomen, which is basically half of its body. Nanos also has a second function that is conserved from flies to humans. This function is very local and instructs the cells with lots of Nanos to become germ cells. ”

Given Nanos’ vital role, embryos must safeguard instructions for its production until the embryo reaches a specific stage of development, when it is time to define the posterior region. Previous work has indicated that germ granules in the germplasm and germ cells can act like vaults, shielding the nanos mRNA from degradation or premature translation.

However, while the mRNA instructions for building the protein are distributed throughout the embryo, Nanos protein is found only in regions where germ granules reside. The mRNA does not get translated elsewhere in the embryo because of a regulatory protein called Smaug, named after the golden dragon depicted in J. R. R. Tolkien’s 1937 novel The Hobbit. Smaug binds to a non-protein coding segment of the mRNA known as the 3’ untranslated region (3’ UTR), extending beyond the protein-coding sequence, effectively suppressing the translation process.

For Lehmann, Chen, and their colleagues, this hinted at an intriguing relationship between nanos mRNA and germ granules. Are the granules essential for translating nanos mRNA into a functional protein? And if they are, is their role primarily to serve as a safekeeping place to evade repression by Smaug or do they actively facilitate the translation of nanos mRNA too?

To answer these questions, the researchers combined high-resolution imaging with a technique called the SunTag system to directly visualize the translation of nanos mRNA within Drosophila germ granules at the single-molecule level.

Unlike green fluorescent protein tagging, where a single fluorescent molecule is used, the SunTag system allows scientists to recruit multiple GFP copies for an amplified signal. First, a small protein tag, known as the SunTag, is fused with the protein-producing region of the nanos mRNA. As the mRNA instructions undergo translation, GFP molecules stick to the newly synthesized SunTag-Nanos protein, resulting in a bright fluorescent signal. Overlying this translation signal with fluorescent probes specifically labeling the mRNA then allows researchers to precisely visualize and track when and where the translation process is taking place.

“Using this system, we’ve discovered that when nanos mRNA is translated, it protrudes slightly from the surface of the granules like snakes peeking out of a box,” says Chen. “But they can’t fully emerge; a part of their sequence, specifically their “back” end, the 3’ UTR, remains tucked inside the granules. When the RNA is not translated, like during oogenesis, the tip coils back and is hidden inside the granule.”

With their high-resolution SunTag imaging technique, Lehmann, Chen and their colleagues have directly added to the work of other researchers with similar observations: mRNAs in the process of translation are in an extended configuration, while the 5’UTR curls back to the 3’UTR when the mRNAs are repressed.

Flipping on nanos translation

Then, the researchers went on to take a closer look at how these granules help initiate translation, while Smaug is able to inhibit the same nanos mRNA molecules from being translated in other areas of the embryo. They hypothesized that the untranslated region (UTR) of nanos mRNA, which remains concealed within the granules, might be playing a pivotal role in the translation process by localizing the mRNA instructions within germ cell granules. This localization, they speculated, protects the mRNA from Smaug’s inhibitory actions and facilitates Nanos protein production, so the posterior region can develop properly.

However, counter-intuitive to a simple protection model, they found that rather than being depleted, Smaug is enriched within germ granules, indicating that additional mechanisms within the RNP granule must counteract Smaug’s inhibitory effects. To explore this, the researchers turned to another regulatory protein called Oskar, which is known to interact with Smaug.

Discovered by Lehmann in a 1986 study, and named after a character in the German novel The Tin Drum, the oskar gene in Drosophila is known to help with the development of the posterior region. Later research has revealed that, during the development of oocytes, Oskar acts as a scaffold protein by initiating the formation of germ granules in germ cells and directing mRNA molecules, including nanos, towards the granules.

To gain a deeper understanding of Oskar’s full role in translational regulation in germ granules and its interaction with Smaug, the researchers engineered a modified version of Oskar protein. This altered Oskar protein retained its ability to initiate the formation of germ granules and localize nanos mRNA within them. However, Smaug no longer localized to the germ granules assembled by this altered Oskar.

The researchers then studied whether the mutant protein had any effect on nanos mRNA translation. In the germ cells with this mutant version of Oskar, the researchers saw a significant reduction in the translation of nanos mRNA. These findings, combined, suggested that Oskar regulates nanos translation in fruit fly embryos by recruiting Smaug to the granules and then counteracting its repression of translation.

“Condensates composed of RNAs and proteins are found in the cytoplasm of pretty much every cell and are thought to mediate mRNA storage or transport,” says Lehmann, who is also a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “But our results provide new insights into condensate biology by suggesting that condensates can be also used to specifically translate stored mRNAs.”

Indeed, in the oocyte, the germ granules are silent and only become activated when the egg is fertilized.

“This suggests that there might also be other ‘on and off switches’ governing translation within condensates during early development,” adds Lehmann. “How this is achieved and whether we could engineer this to happen at will in these and other granules is a question for the future.”

Boston Globe: Mary-Lou Pardue, MIT professor whose anti-bias efforts lifted women in science, dies at 90

Her research formed the foundation for understanding the structure of chromosomes.

Bryan Marquard | Boston Globe
July 7, 2024

Amid the clatter of lunchtime dishes, Mary-Lou Pardue sat across from Nancy Hopkins one day in 1994 in a café not far from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reading a letter Hopkins had drafted.

Both were MIT professors and scientists, and Hopkins, the younger of the two, had gathered data showing women on the faculty were routinely discriminated against in numerous ways. Hopkins wanted to send her findings to the school’s president, but sought a blessing of sorts from Dr. Pardue, the first woman in MIT’s School of Science to be inducted into the National Academy of Sciences.

“I chose Mary-Lou as the person whose judgment would mean the most to me. I had this huge respect for her as a scientist before I even met her,” Hopkins recalled in an interview.

Dr. Pardue read the letter “very slowly and put it down on the table and said, ‘I agree with this letter, every word. I want to sign it and think you should send it to the president,’ ” Hopkins said. “And that changed my life, and ultimately it changed MIT. That was, to me, the defining moment for women at MIT.”

A highly regarded cellular and molecular biologist whose work formed the foundation for key advancements and discoveries in understanding the structure of chromosomes, Dr. Pardue died June 1 in Youville Assisted Living in Cambridge.

She was 90, had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, and her health had been failing.

The first Boris Magasanik professor of biology at MIT, Dr. Pardue had also been an American Academy of Arts and Sciences fellow, and was a past president of the Genetics Society of America and the American Society for Cell Biology.

Her efforts at MIT 30 years ago with Hopkins and other female professors, however, are still having a ripple effect through academia across the country and around the world.

When Dr. Pardue told Hopkins she wanted to sign the letter about bias against women and send it to MIT’s president, “I knew the world had shifted,” said Hopkins, whose efforts with Dr. Pardue and others were documented in “The Exceptions,” a 2023 book by New York Times reporter Kate Zernike, who initially broke the story as a Boston Globe reporter.

“I could sense the power of it: Two women, saying the same thing, one of them a member of the National Academy of Sciences,” Hopkins said. “She looked at me and felt the same thing, that two women together had power.”

They reached out to other tenured female professors at MIT, and almost all co-signed the letter, which they presented to the president. In 1995, MIT created the Committee on the Status of Women Faculty, whose 1999 report documented the systematic bias that women in the School of Science were facing.

That report, and MIT’s subsequent efforts to address its failings, led to similar efforts at universities across the country.

“It was life-changing, but that it could change the world? This is not something that occurred to me then,” Hopkins said, laughing at the memory.

As a young scientist, Dr. Pardue and Joseph Gall, who had been her doctoral adviser at Yale University, developed an “in situ hybridization” technique that “led to many discoveries, including critical advancements in developmental biology, our understanding of embryonic development, and the structure of chromosomes,” MIT said in its tribute to Dr. Pardue.

“In situ hybridization was a crucial step toward genomics. In some ways you could call it the first genomic technique,” said Allan Spradling, an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institution.

“Her research is underappreciated,” said Spradling, who also is a former director of the embryology department at the Carnegie Institution for Science. “It’s all tied into so many momentous events in the history of genomics.”

Kerry Kelley, who formerly managed Dr. Pardue’s lab, and is now manager of the Yilmaz Lab at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, said that “Mary-Lou was a giant of her time.”

Continuing to work in her lab after the onset of Parkinson’s, Dr. Pardue was “gracious, kind, smart as a whip, and just full of great stories,” Kelley said.

The techniques that Dr. Pardue and Gall developed are now used in thousands of labs around the world, said Thomas Cech, a former post-doctoral student of Dr. Pardue’s who shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

“It was one of those discoveries which seemed important at the time and certainly attracted many of us to her laboratory,” he said, “but in retrospect, we had no idea how powerful this would become.”

Born on Sept. 15, 1933, Mary-Lou Pardue grew up in and around Lexington, Ky.

Her father, Louis Pardue, was a dean at Virginia Tech. Her mother, Mary Allie Marshall Pardue, had been a teacher before marrying. Her younger brother, William, who died in 2016, was a scientist in the nuclear industry.

Dr. Pardue graduated in 1955 from the College of William and Mary with a bachelor’s degree in biology.

After working in research, she received a master’s in radiation biology in 1959 from the University of Tennessee and a doctorate in biology in 1970 from Yale University.

She also did postdoctoral work at the University of Edinburgh before seeking a faculty position in the United States. MIT turned her down with a letter at first, and then recruited her for an associate professor position in 1972 after hearing about her work and lectures, “which I thought was as sincere an apology as you can get,” she said with a laugh in a video forum that MIT posted online.

Dr. Pardue, whose marriage in her graduate student years ended in divorce, was an avid hiker in New Hampshire’s White Mountains who also took on distant challenging terrain. She agreed to the Genetics Society presidency because on the way home from an international meeting in India she could go trekking in Nepal’s Annapurna range.

“She was a fun person to be around,” said Susan A. Gerbi, the George Eggleston professor of biochemistry emerita at Brown University, and a graduate school contemporary of Dr. Pardue’s at Yale.

“She had a twinkle in her eye, which you can see even if you look at the seminar she gave on YouTube,” Gerbi said. “And she was very smart and had good insights.”

Over the years, Dr. Pardue was close to her brother’s family, spending time with them during the winter holidays and going along on skiing and camping trips.

“A lot of times you run into scientists who are quite intelligent and can’t relate to people on a personal level,” said her nephew, Todd Pardue of Fairfax Station, Va. “She would take the time to talk to you. She was a very special person.”

He and his sister, Sara Pardue Gibson of Columbus, Ohio, are their aunt’s closest survivors. Plans for a celebration of Dr. Pardue’s life and work are pending.

While fielding questions during her MIT talk that was recorded for a video, Dr. Pardue smiled and said in a voice still rich with the Kentucky accent of her youth that as a researcher, “the greatest joy is when an experiment you didn’t think would work, works.”

Such clear, concise lessons were among those she imparted to generations of young scientists who worked in her labs, including at MIT, where she was a professor for more than 30 years.

“She was a great mentor who was as proud of her scientific children and grandchildren as she was of her own accomplishments. That’s not the way all scientists look at things,” said Ky Lowenhaupt, manager of the Biophysical Instrumentation Facility at MIT.

Lowenhaupt said Dr. Pardue “was a role model of what women in science can be at a time when there weren’t a lot of those, and a trailblazer as a woman — but also a trailblazer as a scientist who didn’t do things along the path that other people took.”

She’s fighting to stop the brain disease that killed her mother before it gets her

Jonathan Weissman is the senior author on a recent study on silencing a prion protein's expression. Prions cause devastating neurodegenerative disorders such as dementia, Huntington's, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Silencing genes represents a step towards a therapeutic model for treating these diseases in humans.

Karen Weintraub | USA TODAY
June 27, 2024

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. ‒ Sonia Vallabh watched helplessly as her 51-year-old mother rapidly descended into dementia and died. It didn’t take long for Vallabh to realize she was destined for the same rare genetic fate.

Vallabh and her husband did what anyone would want to do in their situation: They decided to fight.

Armed with little more than incredible intellect and determination they set out to conquer her destiny.

A dozen years later, they’ve taken a major step in that direction, finding a way to shut off enough genetic signals to hold off the disease.

And in the process of trying to rescue Vallabh, they may save many, many others as well.

In a paper published Thursday in the prestigious journal Science, Vallabh and her husband, Eric Minikel, and their co-authors offer a way to disrupt brain diseases like the one that killed her mother.

The same approach should also work against diseases such as Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease and even Alzheimer’s, which result from the accumulation of toxic proteins. If it works as well as they think, it could also be useful against a vast array of other diseases that can be treated by shutting off genes.

“It doesn’t have to be the brain. It could be the muscles. It could be the kidneys. It could be really anywhere in the body where we have not easily been able to do these things before,” said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a cardiologist and geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, who wasn’t involved in the research but wrote a perspective accompanying the paper.

So far, they’ve proven it only in mice.

“The data are good as far as they go,” Vallabh said this week from her office at the Broad Institute of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where she has worked since getting a Ph.D. at Harvard. She had already gotten a law degree from the university, but she and Minikel, then a transportation planner, both pursued biology degrees after her mother’s death. Now, they work together at the Broad.

“We’re far from this being a drug,” Vallabh said. “There’s always, always reason for caution. Sadly, everything is always more likely to fail than succeed.

“But there is justifiable reason for optimism.”

A terrible disease

The disease that killed Vallabh’s mother was one of a group of conditions called prion diseases. These include mad cow disease, which affects mostly cattle, scrapie, which affects sheep, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which kills about 350 Americans a year ‒ most within months of their first symptom.

These diseases are triggered when the prion protein found in all normal brains starts misfolding for some reason, as yet unknown.

“Prion disease can strike anybody,” Vallabh said, noting the 1 in 6,000 risk to the general population.

Though prion diseases are, in some cases, contagious, a federal study earlier this year concluded that chronic wasting disease, found in deer, elk and moose, is very unlikely to pass to people who eat the meat of sick animals.

In Vallabh’s case, the cause is genetic. Vallabh discovered after her mother’s death that she carries the same variant of the same gene that caused her mother’s disease, meaning she will certainly develop it.

The only question is when.

“The age of onset is extremely unpredictable,” Vallabh said. “Your parent’s age of onset doesn’t actually predict anything.”

How the gene-editing tool works

Vallabh and Minikel approached colleagues at the Whitehead Institute a biomedical research institute next to the Broad. They asked to collaborate on a new gene-editing approach to turn off Vallabh’s disease gene. The technique developed by Whitehead scientists is called CHARM (for Coupled Histone tail Autoinhibition Release of Methyltransferase).

While previous gene-editing tools have been described as scissors or erasers, Musunuru described CHARM as volume control, allowing scientists to tune a gene up or down. It has three advantages over previous strategies, he said.

The device is tiny, so it fits easily inside the virus needed to deliver it. Other gene-editing tools, like CRISPR, are bigger, which means they need to be broken into pieces and much more of the virus is needed to deliver those pieces to the brain, risking a dangerous immune reaction.

CHARM, Musunuru said, is “easier to deliver to hard-to-deliver spaces like the brain.”

At least in the mouse, it also seems to have reached throughout the brain, making the desired genetic change without other, unwanted ones, Musunuru said.

And finally, the research team figured out a way to turn the gene editor off after its work was done. “If it’s sticking around, there’s the potential for genetic mischief,” Musunuru said.

One shot on goal

While researchers, including Vallabh, continue to work to perfect an approach, the clock for Vallabh and others is ticking.

Right now there’s no viable treatment and if it takes too long to develop one, Vallabh will miss her window. Once the disease process starts, like a runaway train, it’ll be much harder to stop than it would be to just shut the gene off in the first place.

The more prion protein in the brain, the more likely it is to misfold. And the more likely it is for the disease to spread, a process that co-opts the natural form of the protein and converts it to the toxic form.

That’s why getting rid of as much of it as possible makes sense, said Jonathan Weissman, the senior author of the study, who leads a Whitehead lab.

“The biology is really clear. The need (for a cure) is so compelling,” Weissman said.

Every cell in the brain has the gene for making the prion protein. By silencing even 50% of those genes, Weissman figures he can prevent the disease. In mice, CHARM silenced up to 80% to 90%.

“We’ve figured out what to deliver. Now we have to figure out how to deliver it,” he said.

Another of the paper’s co-authors, the Broad’s Ben Deverman, published a study late last year showing he could deliver a gene-therapy-carrying virus throughout the brain. Others are developing other viral delivery systems.

Vallabh and Minikel have hedged their bets, helping to develop a so-called antisense oligonucleotide, or ASO, which uses another path for stopping the gene from making the prion protein.

The ASO, which is in early trials in people by a company called Ionis Pharmaceuticals, requires regular treatment rather than the one-and-done of gene therapy. Recruitment for that trial had to be paused in April because the number of would-be volunteers outstripped the available slots.

Vallabh isn’t ready yet to start any treatment yet herself.

“She has one shot on goal,” Musunuru said. “At some point, she’ll have to decide what’s the best strategy.”

In the meantime, the clock Vallabh can’t see continues to tick toward the onset.

She and Minikel stay exceedingly busy with their research along with their daughter, almost 7, and 4-year-old son ‒ both born via IVF and preimplantation genetic testing to ensure they wouldn’t inherit her genetic curse. (They were super lucky, Vallabh notes, to be living in Massachusetts where IVF is at least “approachable” financially.)

“There is a mountain ahead of us,” Vallabh said of the path to a cure. “There’s still a lot of hurdles, there’s still a lot to figure out.”

A day in the life — graduate student and genomics researcher Neha Bokil

Neha Bokil is studying mechanisms that regulate expression of genes located on the X and Y chromosomes in order to better understand sex-biased conditions that predominantly affect one sex.

Shafaq Zia | Whitehead Institute
June 25, 2024

Graduate student Neha Bokil moves around the Page lab with urgency. Today, she’s running an experiment using white blood cells from patients with varying numbers of X and Y chromosomes.

The lab of Whitehead Institute Member David Page investigates the role of the X and Y chromosomes beyond determining sex. While most females have two X chromosomes (XX) and most males have one X and one Y chromosome (XY), there are individuals whose sex chromosome constitution varies from this, having instead, for example, XXY, XXX, or XXXXY. With the goal of understanding why certain conditions are more prevalent in one sex versus than the other, Bokil is using this experiment to explore if and how cellular processes, such as gene regulation, vary among individuals with these atypical combinations of sex chromosomes.

Partially hidden in the cell culture hood, Bokil finally locates what she’s been searching for: a pipette for dispensing 99 microliters of the cell suspension she’s meticulously prepared this afternoon, a type of culture where cells float in nutrient-rich liquid, free to function and grow.

Bokil carefully extracts this volume and transfers it to a flat plate — also called a 96-well plate — with tiny holes for growing small cell samples. Now, it’s a waiting game until she can find out how these cells are growing, and whether their proliferation rate depends on the number of sex chromosomes in a cell.

Bokil dives into the intricacies of human genetics every day, hoping her work will eventually help reshape how sex differences are understood in medicine and improve treatment outcomes. The dynamic research Bokil is conducting at Whitehead Institute is her calling, but she has other passions as well. Here’s what a typical day in her life as a graduate student looks like, both in and outside the lab.

An inherited love of numbers

When she isn’t rushing out the door, Bokil loves brewing and savoring the perfect cup of morning chai, a traditional South Asian loose-leaf tea with milk. Every family has their own recipe, and Bokil makes hers with ginger, a touch of cardamom, and some sugar.

“Chai is comforting at any time, but I’ve noticed my mood vastly improves when I’m able to have a cup in the morning,” she says.

On her walk to the Whitehead Institute, she often listens to Bollywood songs. But these predilections — chai and Indian cinema — are more than just rituals for her. They symbolize tradition and cherished connections with family and friends.

In fact, family bonds have greatly influenced Bokil’s career path. As a child, she loved mathematics. It wasn’t a trait passed on genetically, but one that flourished through moments of connection with her grandmother, a math teacher in India. During summer visits to Bokil’s family in the U.S., she’d enthusiastically impart her passion for numbers onto her granddaughter. By the time Bokil went to high school and later college, she had become fluent in the language of logic and patterns.

“My time with her made me realize just how beautiful and fun math is, and I could see its practical applications in everyday life, all around me,” Bokil says.

For her PhD, she sought to combine her undergraduate training in mathematics and molecular biology to tackle a real-world problem. With genetics at the crossroads of these disciplines, and the Page Lab leading the way in transforming scientific understanding of X and Y chromosomes beyond reproduction, Bokil knew she had to get involved.

This morning, as she sits at her desk, poring over a research paper before an afternoon lab meeting, she ponders how insights from the study could enhance her manuscript writing process. Bokil’s graduate project uses a collection of cell lines derived from patients with atypical numbers of X and Y chromosomes to investigate mechanisms that regulate — or dial up and down the expression of — genes located on one of the X chromosomes in females called the “inactive” X chromosome.

Although the X and Y sex chromosomes in mammals began as a pair with similar structures, over time, the Y chromosome underwent degeneration, leading to the loss of numerous active genes. In contrast, the X chromosome preserved its original genes and even gained new ones. To maintain balance in gene expression across the two sexes — XX and XY — an evolutionary mechanism called X chromosome inactivation emerged.

This process is known to randomly silence one X chromosome in each XX pair, ensuring that both sexes have an equal dosage of genes from the X chromosome. However, in recent years, the Page lab has discovered that there are powerful distinctions within females’ pair of X chromosomes, and the so-called “inactive” X chromosome is far from passive. Instead, it plays a crucial role in regulating gene expression on the active X chromosome.

“That’s not all,” adds Bokil. “There are still genes expressed from that “inactive” X chromosome. Cracking how these genes are regulated could answer longstanding questions about sex differences in health.”

Bokil is unraveling this genetic mystery with the help of chemical tags called histone marks. These tags cling to a family of proteins that function like spools, allowing long strands of DNA to coil around them — like thread around a bobbin — so genetic information remains neatly packaged within the cell’s nucleus.

This complex of DNA, RNA, and proteins is called chromatin, the genetic material that eventually forms chromosomes. Chromatin also lays the groundwork for gene regulation by keeping some genes tightly wound around the histones, rendering them inaccessible, and unwinding others for active use.

Certain histone marks are associated with open chromatin structure and active gene expression, while others indicate closed chromatin structure and gene silencing. By examining the specific histone marks on proteins near genes on the “inactive” X chromosome, Bokil aims to decipher if and how these genes are turned on and off.

She’s particularly interested in a group of genes that have counterparts on the Y chromosome. These genes, known as homologous X-Y gene pairs, are typically dosage-sensitive and play a crucial role in regulating essential processes throughout the body like the transcription of DNA into RNA and the translation of RNA into proteins.

Celebrating small triumphs

Graduate school can feel like a marathon — progress is slow but every small step counts towards a breakthrough. For Bokil, stumbling upon a captivating scientific puzzle has been a stroke of luck she deeply appreciates. In fact, the mystery of how genes are controlled on the “inactive” X chromosome has not only shaped her scientific pursuits but also her artwork — on one quiet evening at home, she found herself inspired to capture an experiment, called CUT&RUN, in her painting.

During the early days of her PhD, Bokil spent hundreds of hours using this technique to identify the precise locations of histone protein and DNA interactions. Right as she was prepared to expand these experiments across multiple cell lines, the COVID-19 hit, throwing her plans — and progress — off course.

During these challenging times, Bokil found solace in her cultural roots and the warmth of community. She began teaching virtual BollyX classes — a dance similar to Zumba, but on Bollywood tunes — every Tuesday evening as a means to stay connected, a commitment she’s upheld ever since throughout her time in graduate school.

Beyond nurturing a sense of togetherness through dance, Bokil is committed to mentoring in science and celebrating improbable victories along a tedious research journey.

“I had a former lab mate who used to do what she called a data dance every time she had a graph she felt happy with,” Bokil recalls. “I think that should catch on a little bit more because it’s always a really good feeling to see how these experiments that have taken up so much of your time and effort are leading somewhere.”

CHARMed collaboration creates a potent therapy candidate for fatal prion diseases

A new gene-silencing tool shows promise as a future therapy against prion diseases and paves the way for new approaches to treating disease.

Greta Friar | Whitehead Institute
June 27, 2024

Drug development is typically slow: The pipeline from basic research discoveries that provide the basis for a new drug to clinical trials and then production of a widely available medicine can take decades. But decades can feel impossibly far off to someone who currently has a fatal disease. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Senior Group Leader Sonia Vallabh is acutely aware of that race against time, because the topic of her research is a neurodegenerative and ultimately fatal disease — fatal familial insomnia, a type of prion disease — that she will almost certainly develop as she ages.

Vallabh and her husband, Eric Minikel, switched careers and became researchers after they learned that Vallabh carries a disease-causing version of the prion protein gene and that there is no effective therapy for fatal prion diseases. The two now run a lab at the Broad Institute, where they are working to develop drugs that can prevent and treat these diseases, and their deadline for success is not based on grant cycles or academic expectations but on the ticking time bomb in Vallabh’s genetic code.

That is why Vallabh was excited to discover, when she entered into a collaboration with Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research member Jonathan Weissman, that Weissman’s group likes to work at full throttle. In less than two years, Weissman, Vallabh, and their collaborators have developed a set of molecular tools called CHARMs that can turn off disease-causing genes such as the prion protein gene — as well as, potentially, genes coding for many other proteins implicated in neurodegenerative and other diseases — and they are refining those tools to be good candidates for use in human patients. Although the tools still have many hurdles to pass before the researchers will know if they work as therapeutics, the team is encouraged by the speed with which they have developed the technology thus far.

“The spirit of the collaboration since the beginning has been that there was no waiting on formality,” Vallabh says. “As soon as we realized our mutual excitement to do this, everything was off to the races.”

Co-corresponding authors Weissman and Vallabh and co-first authors Edwin Neumann, a graduate student in Weissman’s lab, and Tessa Bertozzi, a postdoc in Weissman’s lab, describe CHARM — which stands for Coupled Histone tail for Autoinhibition Release of Methyltransferase — in a paper published today in the journal Science.

“With the Whitehead and Broad Institutes right next door to each other, I don’t think there’s any better place than this for a group of motivated people to move quickly and flexibly in the pursuit of academic science and medical technology,” says Weissman, who is also a professor of biology at MIT and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. “CHARMs are an elegant solution to the problem of silencing disease genes, and they have the potential to have an important position in the future of genetic medicines.”

To treat a genetic disease, target the gene

Prion disease, which leads to swift neurodegeneration and death, is caused by the presence of misshapen versions of the prion protein. These cause a cascade effect in the brain: the faulty prion proteins deform other proteins, and together these proteins not only stop functioning properly but also form toxic aggregates that kill neurons. The most famous type of prion disease, known colloquially as mad cow disease, is infectious, but other forms of prion disease can occur spontaneously or be caused by faulty prion protein genes.

Most conventional drugs work by targeting a protein. CHARMs, however, work further upstream, turning off the gene that codes for the faulty protein so that the protein never gets made in the first place. CHARMs do this by epigenetic editing, in which a chemical tag gets added to DNA in order to turn off or silence a target gene. Unlike gene editing, epigenetic editing does not modify the underlying DNA — the gene itself remains intact. However, like gene editing, epigenetic editing is stable, meaning that a gene switched off by CHARM should remain off. This would mean patients would only have to take CHARM once, as opposed to protein-targeting medications that must be taken regularly as the cells’ protein levels replenish.

Research in animals suggests that the prion protein isn’t necessary in a healthy adult, and that in cases of disease, removing the protein improves or even eliminates disease symptoms. In a person who hasn’t yet developed symptoms, removing the protein should prevent disease altogether. In other words, epigenetic editing could be an effective approach for treating genetic diseases such as inherited prion diseases. The challenge is creating a new type of therapy.

Fortunately, the team had a good template for CHARM: a research tool called CRISPRoff that Weissman’s group previously developed for silencing genes. CRISPRoff uses building blocks from CRISPR gene editing technology, including the guide protein Cas9 that directs the tool to the target gene. CRISPRoff silences the targeted gene by adding methyl groups, chemical tags that prevent the gene from being transcribed, or read into RNA, and so from being expressed as protein. When the researchers tested CRISPRoff’s ability to silence the prion protein gene, they found that it was effective and stable.

Several of its properties, though, prevented CRISPRoff from being a good candidate for a therapy. The researchers’ goal was to create a tool based on CRISPRoff that was just as potent but also safe for use in humans, small enough to deliver to the brain, and designed to minimize the risk of silencing the wrong genes or causing side effects.

From research tool to drug candidate

Led by Neumann and Bertozzi, the researchers began engineering and applying their new epigenome editor. The first problem that they had to tackle was size, because the editor needs to be small enough to be packaged and delivered to specific cells in the body. Delivering genes into the human brain is challenging; many clinical trials have used adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) as gene-delivery vehicles, but these are small and can only contain a small amount of genetic code. CRISPRoff is way too big; the code for Cas9 alone takes up most of the available space.

The Weissman lab researchers decided to replace Cas9 with a much smaller zinc finger protein (ZFP). Like Cas9, ZFPs can serve as guide proteins to direct the tool to a target site in DNA. ZFPs are also common in human cells, meaning they are less likely to trigger an immune response against themselves than the bacterial Cas9.

Next, the researchers had to design the part of the tool that would silence the prion protein gene. At first, they used part of a methyltransferase, a molecule that adds methyl groups to DNA, called DNMT3A. However, in the particular configuration needed for the tool, the molecule was toxic to the cell. The researchers focused on a different solution: Instead of delivering outside DNMT3A as part of the therapy, the tool is able to recruit the cell’s own DNMT3A to the prion protein gene. This freed up precious space inside of the AAV vector and prevented toxicity.

The researchers also needed to activate DNMT3A. In the cell, DNMT3A is usually inactive until it interacts with certain partner molecules. This default inactivity prevents accidental methylation of genes that need to remain turned on. Neumann came up with an ingenious way around this by combining sections of DNMT3A’s partner molecules and connecting these to ZFPs that bring them to the prion protein gene. When the cell’s DNMT3A comes across this combination of parts, it activates, silencing the gene.

“From the perspectives of both toxicity and size, it made sense to recruit the machinery that the cell already has; it was a much simpler, more elegant solution,” Neumann says. “Cells are already using methyltransferases all of the time, and we’re essentially just tricking them into turning off a gene that they would normally leave turned on.”

Testing in mice showed that ZFP-guided CHARMs could eliminate more than 80 percent of the prion protein in the brain, while previous research has shown that as little as 21 percent elimination can improve symptoms.

Once the researchers knew that they had a potent gene silencer, they turned to the problem of off-target effects. The genetic code for a CHARM that gets delivered to a cell will keep producing copies of the CHARM indefinitely. However, after the prion protein gene is switched off, there is no benefit to this, only more time for side effects to develop, so they tweaked the tool so that after it turns off the prion protein gene, it then turns itself off.

Meanwhile, a complementary project from Broad Institute scientist and collaborator Benjamin Deverman’s lab, focused on brain-wide gene delivery and published in Science on May 17, has brought the CHARM technology one step closer to being ready for clinical trials. Although naturally occurring types of AAV have been used for gene therapy in humans before, they do not enter the adult brain efficiently, making it impossible to treat a whole-brain disease like prion disease. Tackling the delivery problem, Deverman’s group has designed an AAV vector that can get into the brain more efficiently by leveraging a pathway that naturally shuttles iron into the brain. Engineered vectors like this one make a therapy like CHARM one step closer to reality.

Thanks to these creative solutions, the researchers now have a highly effective epigenetic editor that is small enough to deliver to the brain, and that appears in cell culture and animal testing to have low toxicity and limited off-target effects.

“It’s been a privilege to be part of this; it’s pretty rare to go from basic research to therapeutic application in such a short amount of time,” Bertozzi says. “I think the key was forming a collaboration that took advantage of the Weissman lab’s tool-building experience, the Vallabh and Minikel lab’s deep knowledge of the disease, and the Deverman lab’s expertise in gene delivery.”

Looking ahead

With the major elements of the CHARM technology solved, the team is now fine-tuning their tool to make it more effective, safer, and easier to produce at scale, as will be necessary for clinical trials. They have already made the tool modular, so that its various pieces can be swapped out and future CHARMs won’t have to be programmed from scratch. CHARMs are also currently being tested as therapeutics in mice.

The path from basic research to clinical trials is a long and winding one, and the researchers know that CHARMs still have a way to go before they might become a viable medical option for people with prion diseases, including Vallabh, or other diseases with similar genetic components. However, with a strong therapy design and promising laboratory results in hand, the researchers have good reason to be hopeful. They continue to work at full throttle, intent on developing their technology so that it can save patients’ lives not someday, but as soon as possible.