Well I would think [the FDA] would like to see a treatment that is safer, possibly more effective and certainly one that operates in a precise manner. We all know that 'random' doesn't always sit well in a science that requires precision @Outlander2
The announcement by the FDA of an investigation into the serious risk of T-cell malignancy following autologous CAR-T immunotherapies, appeared to come out of the blue whereas in fact, its probably been years in the making. I've previously used the term insertional mutagenesis but its of more interest that I borrowed the term from the paper by MacLeod et. al and their seminal paper previously linked in Post #: 71208773. Lets dig a little deeper and try to understand how the FDA case may have been building in the background.
According to the article Cancer gene discovery: exploiting insertional mutagenesis by Ranzani et. al. published in October 2013, insertional mutagenesis occurs when an exogenous DNA sequence integrates within the genome of a host organism. It appears that the insertion of a CAR into the T cell genome fits the bill. So what could possibly go wrong!
According to the authors, this exogenous event can result in a deregulation of genes in the neighbourhood of the insertion site and potentially cause a perturbation of cellular phenotype. Remember in the case of autologous CAR-T immunotherapies, the use of lentiviral or retroviral vectors - the exogenous event - results in random insertions that may occur multiple times. The perturbation of cellular phenotype could manifest for instance, in the case of autologous CAR-T immunotherapies, as T-cell malignancy.
So, the investigation, in all likelihood, has not occurred out of the blue. Neither has the development of azer-cel. As you say, "Enter Precision and their amazing ARCUS system, which was used to create Azercabtagene zapreleucel (azer-cel), an anti-CD19 allogeneic CAR T candidate, now owned by IMU."
So, why is the FDA only now investigating the serious risk of T-cell malignancy when the mechanism of action has most likely been understood for a decade? I think the answer is tied up in the fact that CAR-T has promised and delivered enormous benefits and in the absence of alternative approaches why scare the horses. Maybe, just maybe, your explanation of the hope for a safer, more effective and precise CAR-T is the best answer.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- IMU
- Ann: AGM Presentation
Ann: AGM Presentation, page-150
-
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 68 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add IMU (ASX) to my watchlist
|
|||||
Last
5.4¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $396.8M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
5.5¢ | 5.6¢ | 5.3¢ | $537.6K | 10.00M |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
4 | 207796 | 5.3¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
5.4¢ | 1452903 | 6 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
4 | 207796 | 0.053 |
16 | 1716454 | 0.052 |
17 | 1803686 | 0.051 |
38 | 2900313 | 0.050 |
37 | 5190186 | 0.049 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
0.054 | 1452903 | 6 |
0.055 | 1569444 | 6 |
0.056 | 1106444 | 10 |
0.057 | 1156345 | 6 |
0.058 | 1098372 | 6 |
Last trade - 16.10pm 11/07/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
IMU (ASX) Chart |