The Genome Remains Murky

A brilliant case study identifying the molecular cause of certain neuro-developmental disorders shows how difficult genome-based diagnoses remain.

Molecular medicine is increasingly effective in assessing both hereditary syndromes and cancers. The sequencing approach generally comes in two flavors- whole genome sequencing, or exome sequencing, where only the most important (protein-coding) parts are sampled. In each case, the hunt is for mutations (more blandly called variants) that cause the syndrome being investigated, from among the large number of variants we all carry. This approach is becoming standard-of-care in oncology, due to tremendous influence and clinical significance of cancer-driving mutations, many of which now match directly to tailored treatments that address them (thus the "precision" in precision medicine).

But another arm of precision medicine is the hunt for causes of congenital problems. There are innumerable genetic disorders whose causal analysis can lead not only to an informative diagnosis, and sometimes to useful treatments, but also to fundamental understanding of human biology. Sufferers of these syndromes may spend a lifetime searching for a diagnosis, being shuffled from one doctor or center to another and subject to various forms of hypothetical medicine, before some deep sequencing pinpoints the cause of their disease and founds a new diagnostic category that provides, if not relief, at least understanding and a medical home. 

A recent paper from Britain provided a classic of this form, investigating the causes of neurodevelopmental (NDD) disorders, which encompass a huge range of problems from mild to severe. They comment that even after the most modern analysis and intensive sequencing, 60% of NDD cases still can not be assigned causes. A large part of the problem is that, despite knowing the full sequence of the human genome, its function is less well-understood. The protein-coding genes (20,000 of those, roughly) are delineated and studied pretty closely. But that only accounts for 1 to 2% of the genome. The rest ranges from genes for a blizzard of non-coding RNAs, some of which are critical, to large regulatory regions with smatterings of important sites, to junk of various kinds- pseudogenes, relic retroviruses, repetitive elements, etc. The importance of any of these elements (and individual DNA base positions within them) varies tremendously. This means specifically that exome sequencing is not going to cut it. Exome sequencing focuses on a very small part of the genome, which is fine if your syndrome (such as a common cancer) is well characterized and known to arise from the usual suspects. But for orphan syndromes, it does not cast a wide enough net. Secondly, even with full genome sequencing, so little is known about the remoter regions of the genome that assigning a function to variations found there is difficult to impossible. It takes statistical analysis of incidence of the variation vs the incidence of the syndrome.

These authors used a trove of data- the Genomics England 100,000 genomes project, focusing on the ~9,000 genomes in this collection from people with NDD syndromes. (Plus additional genomes collected elsewhere.) (We can note in passing that Britain's nationalized health system remains at the forefront of innovative research and care.) What they found was an unusually high incidence of a particular mutation in a non-protein-coding gene called RNU4-2. The product of this gene is an RNA called U4, which is an important part of the spliceosome, where it pairs RNA-to-RNA with another RNA, U6, in a key step of selecting the first (5-prime) side of an intron that is to be spliced out of mRNA messages. This gene would never have come up in exome analysis, being non-protein-coding. Yet it is critically important, as splicing happens to the vast majority of human genes. Additionally, differential splicing- the selection of alternative exons and splice sites in a regulated way- happens frequently in developmental programs and neurological cell types. There is a class of syndromes called spliceosomopathies that are caused by defects in mRNA splicing, and tend to appear as syndromes in these processes.

As shown in the images (all based on a large corpus of other work on spliceosomes), RNU4-2/U4 pairs intimately with the U6 spliceosomal RNA, and the mutation found by the current group (which is a single nucleotide insertion) causes a bulge in this pairing, as marked. Meanwhile, the U6 RNA pairs at the same time with the exon-intron junction of the target mRNA (bottom image), at a site that is very close to the U4 pairing region (top image). The upshot is that this single base insertion into U4 causes some portion of the target mRNAs to be mis-spliced, using non-natural 5 prime splice sites and thus altering their encoded proteins. This may cause minor problems in the protein, but more often will cause a shift in translation frame, a premature stop codon, and total loss of the functional protein. So this tiny mutation can have severe effects and is indeed genetically dominant- that is, one copy overrides a second wild-type copy to generate the NDD diseases that were studied.

The U4 RNA (teal) paired with the U6 RNA (gray), within an early spliceosome complex. The mutation studied here is pointed out in black (n.64_65insT - i.e. insertion of a T). Note how it would cause a bulge in the pairing. Importantly, the location in the U6 RNA that pairs with the mRNA (see below) is right next door, at the ACAGAGA (light gray). The authors use this structural work from others to suggest how the mutation they found can alter selected splicing sites and thus lead to disease. Other single nucleotide insertions that cause similar syndromes are marked with black arrows, while single nucleotide substitutions that cause less severe syndromes are marked with orange RNA segments.

The U6 RNA (pink) paired with its mRNA target to be spliced. It binds right at the intron (gray) exon (black) boundary, where the cut will eventually be made the remove the intron. The bump from the mis-paired mutant U4 RNA (see above) distorts this binding, sending U6 to select wrong locations for spicing.

The researchers went on to survey this and other spliceosomal RNA genes for similar mutations, and found few to none outside the region marked in the diagram above. For example, there is a highly similar gene called RNU4-1. But this gene is expressed about 100-fold less in brain and other tissues, making RNU4-2 the principal source of U4 RNA, and much more significant as a causal factor for NDD. It appears that other locations in RNU4-2 (and other spliceosomal RNA genes) are even more important than the one mutated location found here, thus are never found, being lethal and heavily selected against, in this highly conserved gene. 

They also noted that, while this RNU4-2 mutation is severe, and thus must happen spontaneously (i.e. not inherited from parents), it only occurrs on the maternal alleles, not paternal alleles in the affected children. They speculate that this may be due to effects this gene may have in male gametogenesis, killing affected sperm preferentially, but not affected oocytes. Lastly, this set of mutations (in the small region shown in the first figure above) appears to account for, in their estimation, about 0.4 % of all NDD seen in Britain. This is a remarkably high rate for such a particular mutation that is not heritable. They speculate that some mutation hotspot kind of process may be causing these events, above the general mutation rate. What this all says about so-called "intelligent design", one may be reluctant to explore too deeply. On the other hand, this still leaves plenty of room to hunt for additional variations that cause these syndromes.

In this research, we see that clinically critical variations can pop up in many places, not just among the "usual suspects", genetically and genomically speaking. While much of the human genome is junk, most of it is also expressed (as RNA) and all of it is fair game for clinically important (if tragic) effects. The NDD syndromes caused by the mutation studied here are very severe- for more so than the ADD or mild autism diagnoses that make up most of the NDD spectrum. Understanding the causal nexus between the genome and human biology and its pathologies, remains an ongoing and complicated scientific adventure.

• Playing the heel. Being the heel. 
• It sure is great to be the victim.
• Oh, right.. now we really know what is going on.
• More spiritual warfare.
• Another grift.

What Causes Cancer? What is Cancer?

There is some frustration in the literature.

Fifty years into the war on cancer, what have we learned and gained? We do not have a general cure, though we have a few cures and a lot of treatments. We have a lot of understanding, but no comprehensive theory or guide to practice. While some treatments are pin-point specific to certain proteins and even certain mutated forms of those proteins, most treatments remain empirical, even crude, and few provide more than a temporary respite. Cancer remains an enormous challenge, clinically and intellectually.

Recently, a prominent journal ran a provocative commentary about the origins of cancer, trashing the reigning model of "Somatic Mutation Theory", or SMT. Which is the proposition that cancer is caused by mutations that "drive" cell proliferation, and thus tumor growth. I was surprised at the cavalier insinuations being thrown around by these authors, their level of trash talk, and the lack of either compelling evidence or coherent alternative model. Some of their critiques have a fair basis, as discussed below, but to say, as the title does, that this is "The End of the Genetic Paradigm of Cancer" is simply wrong.

"It is said that the wise only believe in what they can see, and the fools only see what they can believe in. The latter attitude cements paradigms, and paradigms are amplified by any new-looking glass that puts one’s way of seeing the world on steroids. In cancer research, such a self-fulfilling prophecy has been fueled by next-generation DNA sequencing."

"However, in the quest for predictive biomarkers and molecular targets, the cancer research community has abandoned deep thinking for deep sequencing, interpreting data through the lens of clinical translation detached from fundamental biology."

Whew!

The main critique, once the gratuitous insults and obligatory references to Kuhn and Feynman are cleared away, is that cancer does not resemble other truly clonal disease / population processes, like viral or bacterial infections. In such processes, (which have become widely familiar after the COVID and HIV pandemics), a founder genotype can be identified, and its descendants clearly derive from that founder, while accumulating additional mutations that may respond to the Darwinian pressures, such as the immune system and other host defenses. While many cancers are clearly driven by some founding mutation, when treatments against that particular "driver" protein are given, resistance emerges, indicating that the cancer is a more diverse population with a very active mutation and adaptation process. 

Additionally, tumors are not just clones fo the driving cell, but have complex structure and genetic variety. Part of this is due to the mutator phenotypes that arise during carcinogenesis, that blow up the genome and cause large numbers of additional mutations- many deleterious, but some carrying advantages. More significantly, tumors arise from and continue to exist in the context of organs and tissues. They can not just grow wildly as though they were on a petri plate, but must generate, for example, vascular structures and a "microenvironment" including other cells that facilitate their life. Similarly, metastasis is highly context-dependent and selective- only very few of the cells released by a tumor land in a place they find conducive to new growth. This indicates, again, that the organ setting of cancer cells is critically important, and accounts in large part for this overall difference between cancers and more straightforward clonal processes. 

Schematic of cancer development, from a much more conventional and thorough review of the field.

Cancer cells need to work with the developmental paradigms of the organism. For instance, the notorious "EMT", or epithelial-mesenchymal transition is a hallmark of de-differentiation of many cancer cells. They frequently regress in developmental terms to recover some of the proliferative and self-repair potential of stem cells. What developmental program is available or allowed in a particular tissue will vary tremendously. Thus cancer is not caused by each and every oncogenic mutation, and each organ has particular and distinct mutations that tend to cause cancers within it. Indeed, some organs hardly foster any cancers at all, while other organs with more active (and perhaps evolutionarily recent) patterns of proliferation (such as breast tissue, or prostate tissue) show high rates of cancer. Given the organ setting, cancer "driver" mutations need not only unleash the cell's own proliferation, but re-engineer its relations with other cells to remove their inhibition of its over-growth, and pursuade them to provide the environment it needs- nutritionally, by direct contact, by growth factors, vascular formation, immune interactions, etc., in a sort of para-organ formation process. It is a complicated job, and one mutation is, empirically, rarely enough.

"Instead, cancer can be broadly understood as “development gone awry”. Within this perspective, the tissue organization field theory is based on two principles that unite phylogenesis and ontogenesis."

"The organicist perspective is based on the interdependency of the organism and its organs. It recognizes a circular causal regimen by closure of constraints that makes parts interdependent, wherein these constraints are not only molecules, but also biophysical force."

As an argument or alternative theory, this leaves quite a bit to be desired, and does not obviate the role of  initiating mutations in the process.

It remains, however, that oncogenic mutations cause cancer, and treatments that address those root causes have time and again shown themselves to be effective cancer treatments, if tragically incomplete. The rise of shockingly effective immunotherapies for cancer have shown, however, that the immune system takes a more holistic approach to attacking disease than such "precision" single-target therapies, and can make up for the vagaries of the tissue environment and the inflammatory, developmental, and mutational derangements that happen later in cancer development. 

In one egregious citation, the authors hail an observation that certain cancers need both a mutation and a chemical treatment to get started, and that the order of these events is not set in stone. Traditionally, the mutation is induced first, and then the chemical treatment, which causes inflammation, comes second. They state: 

"The qualitative dichotomy between a mutagenic initiator that creates ’cancer cells’ and the non-genetic, tissue-perturbing promoter that expands them may not be as clear-cut. Indeed, the reverse experiment (first treatment with the promoter followed by the initiator) equally produces tumors. This result refutes the classical model that requires that the mutagenic (alleged) initiator must act first."

The citation is to a paper entitled "The reverse experiment in two-stage skin carcinogenesis. It cannot be genuinely performed, but when approximated, it is not innocuous". This paper dates from 1993, long before sequencing was capable of evaluating the mutation profiles of cancer cells. Additionally, the authors of this paper themselves point out (in the quote below) a significant assymetry in the treatments. Their results are not "equal":

"The two substances showed a reciprocal enhancing effect, which was sometimes weak, sometimes additive, and sometimes even synergistic, and was statistically most significant when the results were assessed from the time of DMBA application. Although the reverse experiment was not in any way innocuous it always resulted in a lower tumor crop than the classical sequence of DMBA followed by a course of TPA treatment. 

However, the lower tumor crop in the reverse experiment cannot be used to prove a qualitative difference between initiators and promoters."

(DMBA is the mutagen, while TPA is the inflammatory accelerant.)

So chemical treatment can prepare the ground for subsequent mutant generation in forming cancers in this system, while being much less efficient than the traditional order of events. This is not a surprise, given that this chemical (TPA) treatment causes relatively long-term inflammation and cell proliferation on its own.

"An epistemic shift towards a biological theory of cancer may still be an uphill battle in the current climate of thought created by the ease of data collection and a culture of research that discourages ’disruptive science’. Here, we have made an argument for dropping the SMT and its epicycles. We presented new and old but sidelined theoretical alternatives to the SMT that embrace theory and organismal biology and can guide experiments and data interpretation. We expect that the diminishing returns from the ceaselessly growing databases of somatic mutations, the equivalent to Darwin’s gravel pit, may soon reach a pivot point."

One rarely reads such grandiloquent summaries (or mixed metaphors) in scientific papers! But here they are truly beating up on straw men. In the end, it is true that cancer is quite unlike clonal infectious diseases, and for this, as for many other reasons, has had scientists scratching their heads for decades, if not centuries. But rest assured that this chest-thumping condescension is quite unnecessary, since those in the field are quite aware of these difficulties. The various nebulous alternatives these authors offer, whether the "epigenetic landscape", the "tissue organization field theory", or the "biological theory of cancer" all have kernels of logic, but the SMT remains the foundation-stone of cancer study and treatment, while being, for all the reasons enumerated above and by these authors, only part of the edifice, not the whole truth.

• Some more thoughts about crypto.
• Resistance is up to congress, ultimately.
• China takes purges quite a bit more seriously than we do.
• But we are getting there.

Sugar is the Enemy

Diabetes, cardiovascular health, and blood glucose monitoring.

Christmas brought a book titled "Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity". Great, I thought- something light and quick, in the mode Gweneth Paltrow or Deepak Chopra. I have never been into self-help or health fad and diet books. Much to my surprise, however, it turned out to be a rather rigorous program of preventative medicine, with a side of critical commentary on our current medical system. A system that puts various thresholds, such as blood sugar and blood pressure, at levels that represent serious disease, and cares little about what led up to them. Among the many recommendations and areas of focus, blood glucose levels stand out, both for their pervasive impact on health and aging, and also because there are new technologies and science that can bring its dangers out of the shadows.

Reading: 

• Outlive
• The many facets and forms of damage by high blood sugar, at the level of molecular biology.
• Recent analyses of blood sugar variability, from researchers at Stanford
• ... with tool for anyone with a CGM to upload their own data

Where do cardiovascular problems, the biggest source of mortality, come from? Largely from metabolic problems in the control of blood sugar. Diabetics know that uncontrolled blood sugar is lethal, on both the acute and long-terms. But the rest of us need to realize that the damage done by swings in blood sugar are more insidious and pervasive than commonly appreciated. Both microvascular (what is commonly associated with diabetes, in the form of problems with the small vessels of the kidney, legs, and eyes) and macrovascular (atherosclerosis) are due to high and variable blood sugar. The molecular biology of this was impressively unified in 2005 in the paper above, which argues that excess glucose clogs the mitochondrial respiration mechanisms. Their membrane voltage maxes out, reactive forms of oxygen accumulate, and glucose intermediates pile up in the cell. This leads to at least four different and very damaging consequences for the cell, including glucose modification (glycation) of miscellaneous proteins, a reduction of redox damage repair capacity, inflammation, and increased fatty acid export from adipocytes to endothelial (blood vessel) cells. Not good!

Continuous glucose monitored concentrations from three representative subjects, over one day. These exemplify the low, moderate, and severe variability classes, as defined by the Stanford group. Line segments are individually classed as to whether they fall into those same categories. There were 57 subject in the study, of all ages, none with an existing diagnosis of diabetes. Yet five of them had diabetes by traditional criteria, and fourteen had pre-diabetes by those criteria. By this scheme, 25 had severe variability as their "glucotype", 25 had moderate variability, and only 7 had low variability. As these were otherwise random subjects selected to not have diabetes, this is not great news about our general public health, or the health system.

Additionally, a revolution has occurred in blood glucose monitoring, where anyone can now buy a relatively simple device (called a CGM) that gives continuous blood glucose monitoring to a cell phone, and associated analytical software. This means that the fasting blood glucose level that is the traditional test is obsolete. The recent paper from Stanford (and the literature it cites) suggests, indeed, that it is variability in blood glucose that is damaging to our tissues, more so than sustained high levels.

One might ask why, if blood glucose is such a damaging and important mechanism of aging, hasn't evolution developed tighter control over it. Other ions and metabolites are kept under much tighter ranges. Sodium ranges between 135 to 145 mM, and calcium from 8.8 to 10.7 mM. Well, glucose is our food, and our need for glucose internally is highly variable. Our livers are tiny brains that try very hard to predict what we need, based on our circadian rhythms, our stress levels, our activity both current and expected. It is a difficult job, especially now that stress rarely means physical activity, and nor does travel, in our automobiles. But mainly, this is a problem of old age, so evolution cares little about it. Getting a bigger spurt of energy for a stressful event when we, in our youth, are in crisis may, in the larger scheme of things, outweigh the slow decay of the cardiovascular system in old age. Not to mention that traditional diets were not very generous at all, certainly not in sugar and refined carbohydrates.

• First, Twitter was turned into a dumpster fire, next the US.
• US government to be rebranded as X.
• Truth must die.
• "Not strictly constitutional"
• Let's go there.