By Kevin E. Noonan --
The "genome revolution" over the past 30 years has resulted in the elucidation of several species, both domesticated (see, e.g., "The Genetic Basis of Coat Variation in Dogs"; "Further and More Detailed Study of Domestic Cat Genome"; "Chicken Origins Established (But Philosophical Questions Remain)"; "Rose Genome Reveals Its Exquisite Complexities") and not ("Red Fox Genome Sheds Light on Domesticated Dogs (and Maybe Humans)"; "Lowland Gorilla Genome Sequenced"; "Giraffe Genome Reveals Relevant Adaptations"; "Genome Structure of the American Cockroach"). Recently, a group of researchers from the U.S., Canada, Europe, and the United Kingdom published the results of their studies with the blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus, which while being "the largest animal to have ever existed, reaching up to 110 feet in length and weighing 330,000 pounds" does not have the largest eukaryotic genome (at 2.7 billion base pairs (Gbps), compared with Paris japonica at 149 Gbps and the Australian lungfish at 43 Gbps); see Bukhman et al., 2024, A high-quality blue whale genome, 1 segmental duplications, and historical demography, Molec. Biol. Evol. Vol. 41, No. 3; https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msae036).
The paper acknowledges the existence of four subspecies of blue whales that are currently recognized: three found in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean, and the fourth (an individual from which produced the "high-quality" genomic information they disclose*) that includes blue whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. The results presented here suggest that these two populations began to diverge 100–200,000 years ago, and became "completely genetically isolated" from one another at the time of the last interglacial period (about 20,000 years ago).
One of the goals of the research is related to the observation that large animals seem to have developed mechanisms to resist cancer (a phenomenon termed Peto's Paradox). Previous genome sequencing of large animals had revealed mutations and duplications of tumor suppressor genes and genes involved in DNA repair and apoptosis, which may account for the observed biology (large mammals, which by having more cells that would suggest higher susceptibility to cancer). Previous studies had also identified segmental duplications (SDs) associated with longevity and increased body size in cetaceans and elephants and duplicated genes and gene families in cetacean genomes using short-read and long-read sequencing methods.
Here, the assembled blue whale genomic sequences obtained by these researchers could be assigned to 23 chromosomal-level scaffolds from the 21 whale autosomes plus the X and Y chromosomes (the sample was a male, although sequencing of the Y chromosome was incomplete). Comparative analysis was performed between the blue whale genome and the vaquita (Phocoena sinus), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trunca), and cattle (Bos taurus) genomes which are evolutionarily related as members of the placental mammal Order Artiodactyla.
The assembly showed both a high level of completeness and revealed gene duplications and expansions in the blue whale genome. This research revealed an evolutionarily recent burst in segmented duplications (SDs) that were correlated with body size in cetaceans. SDs detected in the blue whale genome are "gene rich, amounting to a roughly 7.1-fold burst in gene duplications relative to vaquita and dolphin, and 3.0-fold relative to cattle." These researchers detected 234 duplicated genes in the blue whale, 167 in the vaquita, 211 in dolphin, and 205 in cattle. The distribution of amplified genes showed that "the ten most highly amplified genes account[ed] for 331 gene copies out of 700 (47%) total duplicated genes." The blue whale sample showed 46 genes having more than 4 copies, compared with 9 in dolphin, 8 in cattle, and 6 in vaquita. It had been shown in previous studies that in cattle there are 163 loci associated with body size, and these researchers found 52 corresponding loci in blue whales and 53 such loci vaquita. In particular comparisons between blue whale and vaquita were identified 133 duplicated genes of potential interest that included KCNMB1, which contained ancient (>20 Mya) duplication events. Other genes detected as duplications in the whale genome include ones related to longevity (MT1X), body size (CHRNB1, DPEP2), development (FZD5, CDK20), cancer (C2orf78, FZD5, DDX24, NCAM1, MT1X, XRCC1, CDK20), obesity and diabetes (DPEP2), and the immune system (NCAM1), with certain of them having been greatly amplified (such as XRCC1, CDK20, and CHRNB1x). A comparison between the genomic regions encoding XRCC1 in blue whale was shown in this figure, illustrating genomic rearrangement in whale not found in vaquita:
A specific gene found to be amplified in blue whale was Insulin-like growth actor 1 (IGF-1), which has been associated with large body size in dogs (see "From Toy Poodle to Rottweiler: Why Is Fido So Small (or Large)?"). Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis was performed on a specific SNP associated with size variation and showed a lack of the variant responsible for large (CA) and small (CG) size, sharing with humans, artiodactyls and other mammals the same sequence (AG) in this SNP. Accordingly, multiple alignment of IGF-1 sequences were performed on 11 cetacean and 18 land artiodactyl species, wherein the 11 cetaceans fell into three phylogenetic clades illustrated by this phylogenetic tree:
wherein the first clade comprises large baleen whales, blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and minke (B. acutorostrata); second, a giant toothed whale, the sperm whale Physeter catodon; and third, smaller toothed whales, including orca (Orcinus orca), dolphins, and porpoises. These studies revealed that three large whales (blue, minke, and sperm), have a different allele from all other artiodactyls found at two sites in the intergenic region upstream of the IGF-1 gene, four in the second intron, and one in the third or fourth intron, depending on the IGF1 isoform. The orca was found to have the same allele as its smaller relatives at these sites. Also found where sites where the four largest whales (blue, minke, sperm) and orca, have a different nucleotide compared to all smaller cetaceans, with there being four such sites in the second intron and one in the third intron. The authors suggest that the large whales have the ancestral allele, while the small ones have evolved an alternative and note that the orca, while being more closely related to smaller dolphins, has the allele characteristic of baleen and sperm whales.
The paper also discusses their "historical demography analysis that suggested a population division between Pacific and Atlantic blue whales." These population metrics were substantially the same between the Pacific and Atlantic populations of blue whale until the end of the Saalian ice age about 125 million years ago. The Atlantic population then showed a slight increase over the Pacific population until the last glacial maximum (LGM) about 20,000 years ago, according to the paper, when both populations decreased. Pacific and Atlantic blue whale populations were found to be highly heterozygous and genetically isolated since the last interglacial period, with blue whales in the North Atlantic and eastern North Pacific beginning to diverge around 100-200,000 years ago.
"Runs of homozygosity analysis" revealed that since that time there has been a low level of inbreeding in the blue whale population, the paper explaining that "[r]uns of homozygosity (ROH) are indicative for the frequency and relative timing of inbreeding events and were frequently used to assess the impact of inbreeding on different mammalian and cetacean populations." The data obtained showed 108 runs that were 500 kb or longer in both Pacific and Atlantic populations, and that over 70% of these ROH were shorter than 1 Mb, which indicated that "most ROH were probably fragmented over time by frequent outcrossing." According to the paper, the "high heterozygosity and short runs of homozygosity in the blue whale genome suggest a large and outbred population in the Northern Pacific."
The paper concludes by asserting that "[a] major finding of this work is the presence of large copy number expansions of a number of genes in the blue whale, while relatively few such expansions are observed in vaquita, bottlenose dolphin, and cattle [which] expansions [in whales] are recent in evolutionary time" and "the assembly will serve as a valuable resource to the scientific community, enabling future comparative genomics studies to further our understanding of large animal longevity and associated resistance to cancer, and helping conserve this magnificent species."
For those interested in methodology used by these researchers the paper discloses the following:
* Our assembly has been annotated by NCBI. Additionally, we annotated both primary and alternate pseudohaplotype by projecting human and mouse genes using TOGA (Tool to infer Orthologs from Genome Alignments). We also predicted GO terms for all protein coding genes identified by the NCBI Eukaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline using Phylo-PFP.
A Better, CRISPR World Assayed in The New York Times
By Kevin E. Noonan --
Idealism is a wonderful and at the same time frustrating character trait, because the world is not ideal as it is and is unlikely to ever be, but the motivation to achieve a more ideal world (or at least a more equitable one) is universal in human cultures (if only as a hope for a better world for our descendants). A professor at the University of California/Berkeley, Fyodor Urnov (at right), recently expounded on the dream of using CRISPR gene editing to cure disease in a New York Times article and addressed the real-world challenges and obstacles faced in trying to use this breakthrough technology broadly enough for that ideal world to come a bit closer to reality (and for a change the NYT did not invoke patent protection as the all-purpose bogeyman thwarting such more idealistic outcome).
Dr. Urnov begins his essay with real-life examples of the types of genetic diseases faced by many (albeit a minority) of Americans (that statistical demographic playing a significant role in the story he is telling), in children and young adults, either from birth or in sudden onset or as a ticking timebomb of consequences determined by their faulty genes. The initial promise of "DNA fixes" was gene therapy beginning in the 1980's, as the fruits of the revolution in molecular biology and the identity of genes responsible for these diseased began to be elucidated. While there have been some successes in these efforts, the mechanisms for achieving them (usually involving virus-mediated gene insertion into an affected cell or tissue) have been both uncertain and "jaw-droppingly expensive" as Dr. Urnov relates (citing the $3.5 million price tag for Hemgenix, CSL Behring's cure for Hemophilia B).
An improvement with tremendous promise is CRISPR (which stands for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats" in homage to how it was initially found in bacteria). As Dr. Urnov explains, CRISPR technology can specify repair of a genetic mutation "right where the 'typo' occurs" in an affected gene. He recites the recent uses of CRISPR technology for providing treatment for congenital blindness, sickle-cell disease, certain heart diseases, nerve disease, cancer, and HIV. These successes engender in Dr. Urnov the hopeful prospect that CRISPR-based genetic medicine could be achieved in future for a variety of ailments, wherein its genetic specificity could provide directed and tailored cures for many diseases. His vision for a future child afflicted with genetic disease is that:
A dedicated CRISPR cures center at a university-affiliated hospital . . . takes the diagnosis [of a genetic disease] and morphs it into an order form for a manufacturing facility to create the medication that will repair the faulty gene. After a month of testing and data review by hospital clinicians and university scientists, the physician does a simple IV injection of the resulting CRISPR medicine, and after a three-day stay at the hospital to confirm the gene editing went according to plan, the child is sent home.
He cites several examples, in the U.S. and abroad, of CRISPR successes and companies like CRISPR Therapeutics, Vertex, Intellia Therapeutics, and Regeneron who have achieved them in recent years, with other examples of on-going work by other companies.
But then Dr. Urnov explains the realities that create real impediments to this genetic utopia. There are 7,000 known genetic diseases (caused by a defect in a single gene) and 400 million people worldwide affected by them. While he posits a simple experimental path from diagnosis to treatment, he also acknowledges that this would be "only the first step in a four-year journey likely to cost at least $8 million to $10 million." The first reason for this situation is the regulatory requirements in the U.S. and Europe aimed at "ensur[ing] safety and efficacy of the experimental medicine," Dr. Urnov laying out the time- and money-consuming path from beginning preclinical studies to actually producing the "CRISPR medicine," which itself is subject to well-deserved demanding specifications. These efforts can cost more than $1 million and take years when animal testing is included in the calculus. As a result, the hypothetical child having a genetic disease amenable to CRISPR treatment "stands little chance of timely treatment," he writes. Added to the complexities of bringing the CRISPR drug to market, Dr. Urnov recognizes that the investment can easily be over $10 million and could (in some instances) be capable of treating only a single patient (for idiosyncratic mutations not shared by a class of patients such as with sickle cell disease where a particular shared mutation converts a glutamic acid residue to valine in the hemoglobin protein). And the doctor notes that many patients do not have the luxury of time for all these processes to play out, making the theoretical possibility of the CRISPR magic bullet even more frustrating and tragic.
There also have been examples of actual therapies (in "conventional" gene therapy) that have hit the roadblock of investment failure by private companies trying to commercialize university-created inventions (one involving UCLA being mentioned specifically in Dr. Urnov's article). But while there is an economic justification for the cost of these drugs (cited here, that "a one-time cure saves the health care system years of costly supportive care"), "[f]or diseases with fewer than 100 patients, such prices [$2-3 million per patient] are still not enough for these efforts to make commercial sense." The doctor cites cases where companies have discontinued clinical studies due to the cost of bringing the drug to market, and the dim or at least insufficient prospects of a return on investment, that have made the economic proposition untenable.
Dr. Urnov proposes that as a first step towards improving this situation is for the regulatory regime to be revised; while it makes sense for diseases having tens of thousands of patients for a proposed treatment, for "one-of-a-kind genetic typo" cases there should be a "streamlined" process (akin to what was employed for CAR-T therapies in their infancy). As for the role of who develops and pays for the treatments, he recognizes that private biotechnology companies cannot bear the burden. "Tapping into federal and state funding could provide a path forward," Dr. Urnov posits, citing recent clinical trial collaborations between UCLA, UCSF, and UC/Berkeley for a gene-editing approach to curing sickle cell disease.
But recognizing the zeitgeist he asks: "Why should the average taxpayer contribute to building medicines for rare diseases? Would the money be better spent on finding treatments for common ailments?" His answer is that helping people with rare diseases will foster development of CRISPR-based treatments for more common ones. He acknowledges that, for now, ethical considerations will limit CRISPR therapies to those patients with diseases like cancer and "devastating genetic ailments." He expresses hope that development of these treatments will eventually produce in genetic medicine the types of advances that have been achieved in other industries. And he advocates that while "[u]nless things change dramatically, the millions of people CRISPR could save will never benefit from it," "[w]e must, and we can, build a world with CRISPR for all."
This essay raises a fundamental ethical question, should we and must we do what we can to achieve CRISPR-based and other revolutionary treatments in the face of the economic realities that there is no short-term economic justification for them? History is replete with examples of seemingly fruitless efforts (Columbus, the space program) that turned out to have unappreciated (or at least unexpected) benefits, economic and otherwise. The long-term view is that developing CRISPR and other medical technologies will produce a more robust, more productive populace, which will inure to our benefit and well-being. The question Dr. Urnov raises is whether we will have the vision to leave behind the short-term view of present-day dollars and cents and see and act upon that possibility for a better, healthier world.
Posted at 09:28 PM in Biotech/Pharma News, Media Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)