Category Archives: Immunology

Immunology Space Attracting High Levels of Investment – Drug Discovery & Development

With a total of 2,145 products currently in development, the immunology market is experiencing a high level of investment compared to many other therapy areas, and companies working within it are seeking to build on the clinical and commercial success of marketed products such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-) inhibitors, according to business intelligence provider GBI Research.

The companyslatest reportstates that, within immunology, the largest pipeline segments are general treatment of inflammation, with 510 products currently in development, and rheumatoid arthritis, with 488. Additionally, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, transplantation, ulcerative colitis, lupus, and allergies are all substantial indications with over 100 pipeline products in development.

The immunology pipeline is highly diverse in terms of molecule type. Unlike the market, which is mostly limited to small molecules, the pipeline contains a wide range of other molecule types including monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), gene therapies, vaccines, and cell therapies.

Due to a degree of crossover between immunology indications in terms of their underlying pathophysiology, it is not uncommon for pipeline products to undergo developmental programs testing them across multiple indications. The majority of first-in-class pipeline products are being developed for a single indication, but approximately a fifth are in development for two or more indications within the therapy area.

While small molecules account for 91% of marketed products, they comprise only 43% of the pipeline. Both mAbs and proteins account for a much higher proportion of the pipeline than the market, and a number of other molecules that do not yet have a presence in the market, such as gene therapies, vaccines, and cell-based therapies, have a well-established presence in the pipeline, that is not limited to the early stages of development.

In terms of the market landscape, a total of 497 licensing deals and 433 co-development deals in the immunology therapy area were identified as having been completed between 2006 and 2016, with a combined aggregate value of $46 billion.

This high level of deal-making activity is indicative of a strong willingness on the part of pharmaceutical companies to engage in strategic consolidations in order to mitigate some of the risks associated with drug development in the immunology therapy area. Considering the very strong commercial performance of products in the immunology market, companies have a meaningful incentive to invest in such products.

Follow this link:
Immunology Space Attracting High Levels of Investment - Drug Discovery & Development

Immunology in perspective – OUPblog (blog)

Among students of science, in contrast to those who do science, the dominant discussion revolves around the degree to which scientific interpretations are subject to extra-curricular influences, specifically, to what extent are facts independent of the larger political context in which science resides. (Political refers to the economic costs and benefits measured as improved health, productivity, military defense, etc.; promotion of ideological commitments; corporate advancement; social flourishing, and the like.) The question is not just applicable to understanding how science makes its truth claims, but represents a general quandary: Scientists, historians, lawyersall citizensconstantly face the task of drawing the line around credible disputes over the standing of facts and their meaning, which ultimately determines their status as true. This matter is posed throughout our culture. Indeed, in whatever endeavor we engage, assumptions are made about the reality of our perceptions and the comprehension of our understanding. This question is the basic philosophical challenge that under-girds all forms of knowledge.

In regards to science, I will unpack this matter in two parts. First, a dictum: facts assume their meaning only within the theory or model in which they are placed. The movement of the stars have one understanding in a Ptolemaic universe and a very different one in a Copernican. This point places the foundation of the factual in a tentative position. This is not a weakness, for such skepticism is the basis of acknowledging the fallibility of scientific pursuits and the basis for the never-ending search for truth. The second dimension of this issue concerns the more ill-defined problem of how the social context in which science is embedded influences truth claims. In some sense this is a trivial point: Funding of research is determined by the economic costs and benefits measured as improved health, productivity, military defense, etc.; promotion of ideological commitments; corporate advancement; social flourishing, etc. But the question is the degree to which science is subject to less well-defined extra-curricular influences, i.e., how does science refract its larger political contextpolitical in its broadest connotations.

Putting aside the most egregious examples (Nazi racial science, Lysenko genetics, creationism), immunology illustrates this problem quite clearly: First, the self/nonself distinction that governs contemporary immune theory draws directly from commonly held notions of personal identity. Immunologists configure such identity in diverse ways, but, most obviously, immunity has been conceived as a discriminatory function. Given its historical development as a clinical science and the persistent demands of treating disease, immunologists have focused their study of the immune reaction in terms of its most activated staterejection of the other (which in turn defines the self). After all, the response to pathogens, if successful, by-and-large requires immune assault. The very language of warfare percolated into immune-talk with the discovery of infectious diseases. And the same terminology was then applied to autoimmune phenomena and immune tumor surveillance. Only in the context of evaluating the control mechanisms of this prominent arm of immunity was immune tolerance considered. And the notions of personal identity have been extended to the language of cognition (e.g. lymphocytes see antigens, possess memory, and learn), which makes the most direct reference to human being.

However, another subtle human orientation structures modern immunology, one less dominant than that marshaled by host defense, but nevertheless growing in influence. If we step outside the clinic, we recognize how immunity serves as the critical mediator of the organisms interactions within its environment. The immune system is basically a cognitive faculty, an information processor: The immune system perceives the world essentially as do animals employing olfactory and taste sensors, i.e., through molecular coupling of substances to specific receptors. The signals of such interactions are then processed in an ascending hierarchy of controls, and like the nervous system, the immune system responds to, or ignores, the universe it perceives. Simply stated, the immune system is like a mobile brain, and most of its work deals with mediating the animals intercourse with its environment, external and internal. And those interactions must invoke mechanisms to tolerate assimilative exchange.

About 20 years ago, those interested in this domain of immune function began calling their research, eco-immunology. The field is growing in many directions, but because of funding priorities such investigations are still largely tied to the defensive orientation of immunologys origins. But we require a more expansive view, for the immune system serves both to differentiate the self from the other,and to provide the gateway for assimilative, co-operative environmental relationships. The current interest in the microbiome, the holobiont, and symbiosis more generally is an expression of a biology that is moving from an insular organism-centered science to an ecological orientation, subordinating individuality to the communal.

Just as immunologists responded to the immediate problem of treating infectious diseases, the turn towards ecology is a response to a complex medley of challenges that have shifted focus from the individual patient to his larger environmental context. Although immunology is, in fact, a member of the environmental sciences viewed strictly with scientific criteria, that focus has remained subordinate to the clinical scenario. And in drawing away from an insular orientation, contextual immunology has asserted a compelling theoretical re-orientation. On this view, immunology is again reflecting broader cultural influences about personal identity, namely, immune theory (in part) derives its current ecological concerns from the larger political and social milieu in which individuality has been re-conceived. When considering immunologys Zeitgeist, immunologists who have joined, what I call the ecological imperative, have developed a heightened sense of the world defined not in terms of insular individualism, but rather in terms of a more global perspective. The focus on identity remains, but it has undergone a significant modification with deep repercussions for immune theory.

Two pervasive forces stimulating this re-alignment are at play: 1) the environmental crisis (if not a catastrophe) has placed us in a collective mind-set, and 2) the massive socio-political challenges arising from economic globalization and mass capitalism have displaced our private identities based on liberal political precepts with a growing cultural compass. The political consequences (e.g., the traumas of social-religious xenophobia, populism, resurgent nationalism, fundamentalism) and economic disruptions are obvious. These reactions to the blurring and redefining of identities testify to the power of these influences.

So, I see these pervasive forces insinuating their effects in the fundamental ways we conceive the world and our own identities. To the extent that immunology is the science of identity, the heretofore governing precepts of defining and protecting individuality are undergoing a shift to an ecological or contextual perspective. Recognizing how these social forces impact on our orientation to the world, our ways of understanding notions of selfhood, has become a constituent of immunologys theoretical orientation: comprehending the establishment and maintenance of symbiosis; discerning the organization and regulation of the resting immune system; discovering the mechanisms of tolerance that govern normal surveillance and exchange each reflect a contextual orientation and are commanding increasing attention.

Shedding notions of autonomy has deep repercussive effects, and the ecological imperative that has seeped into immunology reveals much about our thought collective. Simply, because of globalization and the growing environmental crisis, we have become more aware of the larger context in which we live. This is true not only in politics or economics, but also in science. Immunology is a vivid case in point of science and its supporting culture in dialogue.

Featured image:Applied immunology. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Continue reading here:
Immunology in perspective - OUPblog (blog)

Frontier Pharma: Versatile Innovation in Immunology – Substantial Deal Making Activity Observed Over the Past … – Yahoo Finance

DUBLIN, Feb 15, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --

Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Frontier Pharma: Versatile Innovation in Immunology - Large Therapy Area Pipeline with a High Degree of Repositioning Potential" drug pipelines to their offering.

Research and Markets Logo

Immunology is a large therapy area characterized by disorders of the immune system - specifically an aberrant immune response against healthy tissues present in the body, leading to chronic or acute inflammation. Depending on the specific site affected, this can lead to various types of chronic pain and loss of mobility, and have a negative impact on quality of life.

This disease area has a total of 2,145 products in active development, trailing only oncology, infectious diseases and central nervous system disorders in terms of pipeline size. There are a total of 529 immunology pipeline products that act on first-in-class molecular targets, representing approximately 40% of the total immunology pipeline for which the molecular target was disclosed.

Due to a degree of crossover between immunology indications in terms of their underlying pathophysiology, it is not uncommon for products being developed for this therapy area to have developmental programs testing them across multiple indications.

Approximately one-fifth of first-in-class pipeline products are in development for two or more indications within the therapy area. This presents an opportunity for companies to develop innovative products across multiple immune disorders, and therefore reach a larger pool of patients than products developed for single indications.

Key Topics Covered:

1 Table of Contents

2 Executive Summary

2.1 Large Therapy Area Characterized by a High Degree of Pathophysiological Crossover

2.2 Strong Pipeline Shows High Level of Versatile Innovation

2.3 Substantial Deal Making Activity Observed over the Past Decade

3 The Case for Innovation in the Immunology Market

3.1 Growing Opportunities for Biologic Products

3.2 Diversification of Molecular Targets

3.3 Innovative First-in-Class Product Developments Remain Attractive

3.4 Regulatory and Reimbursement Policy Shifts Favor First-in-Class Product Innovation

3.5 Sustained Innovation

4 Introduction

4.1 Therapy Area Introduction

4.2 Symptoms

4.3 Etiology and Pathophysiology

4.3.1 Innate Immunity

4.3.2 Adaptive Immunity

4.3.3 The Role of Cytokines

4.3.4 Autoimmunity

4.3.5 Etiologic Factors for Autoimmunity and Allergies

4.3.6 Conclusion

4.4 Co-morbidities and Complications

4.5 Epidemiology

4.6 Treatment

4.6.1 Non-Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs

4.6.2 Glucocorticoids

4.6.3 Biologics and Targeted Therapies

5 Pipeline Landscape Assessment

5.1 Overview

5.2 Pipeline Development Landscape

5.3 Molecular Targets in the Pipeline

5.4 Comparative Distribution of Programs between the Oncology Market and Pipeline by Therapeutic Target Family

5.5 First-in-Class and Versatile Pipeline Programs

5.6 First-in-Class Immunology Products by Phase, Molecule Type and Molecular Target

5.7 Versatility of First-in-Class Pipeline Products

6 Immunology Signaling Network, Disease Causation and Innovation Alignment

6.1 Complexity of Signaling Networks

6.2 Signaling Pathways and First-in-Class Molecular Target Integration

6.3 First-in-Class Matrix Assessment

7 First-in-Class Target and Pipeline Program Evaluation

Read More

7.1 Pipeline Programs Targeting Toll-Like Receptors 3, 6 and 8

7.2 Pipeline Programs Targeting Spleen Tyrosine Kinase

7.3 Pipeline Programs Targeting IL-7R

7.4 Pipeline Programs Targeting C-C Chemokine Receptor Type 6

7.5 Pipeline Programs Targeting P2RX7

7.6 Pipeline Programs Targeting ITK

7.7 Pipeline Programs Targeting IRAK4

7.8 Pipeline Programs Targeting Orai1

7.9 Pipeline Programs Targeting Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor Superfamily Member 5

7.10 Conclusion

8 Strategic Consolidations

8.1 Industry-Wide First-in-Class Deals

8.2 Licensing Deals

8.2.1 Deals by Region, Year and Value

8.2.2 Deals by Stage of Development and Value

8.2.3 Deals by Molecule Type and Value

8.2.4 Deals by Molecular Target and Value

8.3 Co-development Deals

8.3.1 Deals by Region, Year and Value

8.3.2 Deals by Stage of Development and Value

8.3.3 Deals by Molecule Type and Value

8.3.4 Deals by Molecular Target and Value

8.4 List of First-in-Class Pipeline Products with and Without Prior Deal Involvement

9 Appendix

9.1 Abbreviations

9.2 References

9.3 Research Methodology

9.3.1 Data integrity

9.3.2 Innovative and meaningful analytical techniques and frameworks

9.3.3 Evidence based analysis and insight

9.4 Secondary Research

9.4.1 Market Analysis

9.4.2 Pipeline Analysis

9.4.3 Licensing and Co-development Deals

For more information about this drug pipelines report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/lgc9s8/frontier_pharma

Media Contact:

Research and Markets

Laura Wood, Senior Manager

press@researchandmarkets.com

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470

For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630

For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907

Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/frontier-pharma-versatile-innovation-in-immunology---substantial-deal-making-activity-observed-over-the-past-decade---research-and-markets-300407842.html

Read this article:
Frontier Pharma: Versatile Innovation in Immunology - Substantial Deal Making Activity Observed Over the Past ... - Yahoo Finance

Immunology Fair-Market Value Compensation Rates for US Health Care Providers: FMV/Fee Schedules for Thought … – Business Wire (press release)

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Fair-Market Value Compensation Rates for U.S. Health Care Providers: FMV/Fee Schedules for Thought Leaders/KOLs - Immunology" report to their offering.

Fair-Market Value Compensation Rates for U.S. HCPs - Immunology presents hourly and half-day flat compensation rates for four (4) Thought Leader levels based on degree of influence. The analysis includes rates for six (6) specific activities as well as for other non-specified activities. The findings presented in this report result from the input from executives at 16 life science organizations.

This study presents fair-market value (FMV) compensation rates by percentiles, with averages, for six (6) activities as well as for non-specific activities, for four (4) levels of Thought Leader influences (rare, international, national and local).

Payments made to physicians and thought leaders have been under scrutiny for a few years and companies have been working to adjust their rates to level with industry standards. Adjustments to market rates should be done periodically and are best done through 3rd party research, providing a fair and balanced assessment of rates.

The research findings deliver markets rates used in the conduct of exchanges with Thought Leaders from 16 life science organizations. These payment benchmarks help legal, compliance and medical affair executives refine and support the development of fee schedules that are aligned with market conditions.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Research Methodology

2. Definitions

- Therapeutic Area

- Thought Leader Levels

- Salary Data versus Market Rates

- Hourly Rates

- Flat Rates

3. Flat Rates

- Advisory Board Lead

- Advisory Board Non-lead

- Consulting Scientific / Clinical Content

- Consulting Commercial Content

- Speaking Scientific / Clinical Content

- Speaking Commercial Content

- Other Activities

4. Hourly Rates

- Advisory Board Lead

- Advisory Board Non-lead

- Consulting Scientific / Clinical Content

- Consulting Commercial Content

- Speaking Scientific / Clinical Content

- Speaking Commercial Content

- Other Activities

For more information about this report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/9429rg/fairmarket_value

Here is the original post:
Immunology Fair-Market Value Compensation Rates for US Health Care Providers: FMV/Fee Schedules for Thought ... - Business Wire (press release)

Study reveals new role for cancer drug in tumor immunology – News-Medical.net

February 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM

A drug first designed to prevent cancer cells from multiplying has a second effect: it switches immune cells that turn down the body's attack on tumors back into the kind that amplify it. This is the finding of a study led by researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center and published recently in Cancer Immunology Research.

According to experiments in mice, macrophages - immune cells that home in on tumors - take in the drug nab-paclitaxel (brand name Abraxane). Once inside these cells, say the study authors, the drug changes them so that they signal for an aggressive anti-tumor immune response.

"Our study reveals a previously unappreciated role for Abraxane in tumor immunology," says corresponding author Dafna Bar-Sagi, PhD, Vice Dean for Science and Chief Scientific Officer at NYU Langone.

"In doing so, it suggests ways to improve the drug and argues for its inclusion in new kinds of combination treatments," says Bar-Sagi, also a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology at NYU Langone, and associated with its Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Abraxane over Paclitaxel

Abraxane is comprised of the decades-old cancer drug, paclitaxel, combined with nanoparticles of the protein albumin (nab). Paclitaxel alone is not effective against pancreatic cancer, but Abraxane (nab-paclitaxel) is part of a leading treatment for the disease. Why the albumin-bound form works better has been a major question in the field.

Paclitaxel prevents structures called microtubules inside cancer cells from breaking up, a required step if they are to multiply as part of abnormal growth. Many in the field assume that nab-paclitaxel too primarily targets microtubules in cancer cells, with albumin perhaps helping the drug to get inside cells, and with fewer toxic side-effects.

The new findings suggest that, on top of any effect on cancer cells, Abraxane's effectiveness may proceed from its impact on macrophages, which roam the bloodstream and build up in many tumors.

The study results revolve around the immune system, in which cells like macrophages trigger a massive attack on bacteria or other invading microbes. This system can also recognize and attack cancer cells. Factors secreted by tumor cells, however, dampen the immune response in part by switching macrophages from their immune-stimulating stance, termed M1, into an M2 mode that suppresses their immune function.

In experiments in macrophage cell lines, the study authors found that nab-paclitaxel is more effective than paclitaxel partly because albumin enables macrophages to take up the drug through a natural process called macropinocytosis.

Once inside macrophages, according to experiments in mice with pancreatic tumors, nab-paclitaxel causes the macrophages to switch from immune-suppressing M2 cells back into M1 cells that amplify the body's effort to kill cancer cells. Past studies had found that paclitaxel has a similar structure to substances given off by bacteria that trigger macrophage activation. The study authors show that the same pathway is evoked by nab-paclitaxel in pancreatic tumor-associated macrophages.

"Our findings argue that it may be possible to develop more treatments that selectively target macrophages by coupling albumin to immune-activating agents," said lead study author Jane Cullis, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Bar-Sagi's lab. "We may also be able to adjust albumin's structure such that drugs attached to it stay in macrophages longer, or combine Abraxane with T-cell treatments for greater therapeutic effect. In principle, such treatments should be useful against the many tumor types infiltrated by macrophages."

Continue reading here:
Study reveals new role for cancer drug in tumor immunology - News-Medical.net

Best Treatment For Warts? Candida Antigen Immunology Injection Works Better And Faster Than Freezing – Medical Daily

Warts are a common butannoying health problem affliciting countless peopleworldwide. Cryotherapy traditionally has been regarded as the most effect wart removal treatment, but new research from the Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iransuggests that aninjection of candida antigen, a type of immunotherapy,may be able to get rid of warts faster and keep them away.

The study, now published online in International Journal of Dermatology,found that 76.7 percent of patients with either a verruca vulgaris wart (found anywhere on the body) or a plantar wart (found on the bottom of feet) were cured with immunotherapy, compared to only 56.7 percent of wart patients treated with cryotherapy. In addition, patients who recieved immunotherapy were cured with fewer sessions than those whose warts were frozen off.

Read: 'Tree Man' Finally Gets Surgery To Remove Warts Caused By Rare Genetic Disease Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis

"Intralesional immunotherapy is an effective treatment of warts," the authors wrote, according to a post on Medical Xpress. "This method has a better therapeutic response, needs fewer sessions, and is capable of treating distant warts."

Plantar warts, or warts found on the bottoms of feet, are common, especially among children. Photo Courtesy of Pixabay

For the study, 60 patients with either a body or footwart were divided into two groups. The first group recieved an immunotherapy treatment consistingof an injection of candida antigen into their warts every three weeks until complete improvement or a maximum of three sessions. The second group recieved cryotherapy consisting of liquid nitrogen for a maximum of 10 weeks of until the wart had completely cleared.

Warts occur when your skin comes in contact with one of the many viruses classifed as human papillomavirus. In most cases, warts are harmless causing little more than slight discomfort and embarrassment. According to WebMD, they are very contagious, and can spread not only from person to person but also from one part of the body to another.

While some warts can go away on their own, for the most part they need to be treated. Cryotherapy is the standard treatment for warts and involves freezing a wart using a very cold substance, usually liquid nitrogen. The treatment is often painful and may need several tries before the wart is completely removed. This treatment also comes with the risk of possible scarring.

Candida antigen injections are a relatively new treatment option for wart removal, and this is not the first time its success in wart thereapy has been documented. However, as reported by Dermotology News, this treatment also comes with its own set of possible side effects and may cause discomfort, redness, and swelling.

Source: Khozeimeh F, Jabbari F, Mahboubi Oskouei Y, et al. Intralesional immunotherapy compared to cryotherapy in the treatment of warts. International Journal of Dermatology. 2017

See Also:

Warts More Likely Contracted From Home, Not Public Hotspots

After HPV Vaccinations Rates of Genital Warts Decline Significantly in Women, but Not Men

Read the original:
Best Treatment For Warts? Candida Antigen Immunology Injection Works Better And Faster Than Freezing - Medical Daily

Immunology takes new approach to beating cancer – The Advocate

Two years after she was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, Wanda Poche has a hard time believing she ever had the disease.

"I always felt like from the date I was diagnosed that I didn't have cancer," she said.

The 65-year-old woman is cancer-free after receiving a newly developed treatment that uses the body's immune system to fight the disease.

Immunotherapy, doctors say, is an innovative advancement that could change the way certain cancers are viewed.

"Everybody's excited about it," said Dr. Vince Cataldo, an oncologist at Mary Bird Perkins Our Lady of the Cancer Center in Baton Rouge. "We're definitely on the forefront."

Chemotherapy attacks a cancer cell's DNA to stop the cell from dividing, thereby stopping the cancer's growth. Traditional chemotherapy "tears the immune system apart," Cataldo said.

"It suppresses the immune system, and people's biggest side effects from chemotherapy are the risk of infection because there is no immune system," he said.

Immunotherapy tries to "make the immune system smarter," he said.

Normally, the body's immune system remains inactive until it needs to fight a threat. But our bodies put the brakes on the immune system to slow it down. An unchecked immune response can eventually kill you.

The new immunotherapy cancer drugs remove those brakes, Cataldo said.

"It has truly changed the way we fight multiple diseases," Cataldo said.

Some prominent drugs, like the one Poche received, target certain cancer cells to make them prone to damage from the immune system.

Cataldo explained that the cancer cells have a receptor similar to an antenna. The immunotherapy drugs block that antenna and allow the immune system to attack the cells.

Poche's battle started in October of 2014 with what she thought was a nagging sinus infection. Her doctor took a chest X-ray and found lung cancer. Because she had quit smoking decades before, Poche was surprised.

"I never expected that," she said. "All through this, I never had shortness of breath. I could always climb stairs. I've always been pretty healthy."

But her cancer had spread to her adrenal gland and lymph nodes. The ear, nose and throat doctor had saved her life, she said.

After months of different chemotherapy treatments, Poche was making no progress against the tumors. Cataldo decided she would be a candidate for a trial of a drug marketed as OPDIVO.

Poche had no side effects from the drug, which Cataldo said is common.

"It doesn't beat up the immune system," he said. "We don't normally see hair loss. We don't typically see vomiting."

After 15 months of IV infusions, there were no signs of Poche's tumors in an August scan. Last month she had a full-body scan, and the cancer had not returned.

"It was still showing clear," she said. "God is great."

Poche will take the treatments every two weeks for the foreseeable future to stop the cancer from returning. But that's a small price to pay, she said.

While immunotherapy works well for lung cancer, it doesn't treat all cancers. This class of drug has been approved to treat kidney cancer, melanoma and Hodgkin lymphoma in addition to lung cancer, diseases that "have nothing in common," Cataldo said.

But the therapy doesn't work for everyone. Patients who have autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis or lupus may experience harsh side effects.

Doctors are hopeful that more cancers can be treated with this type of drug.

"Cancer centers are looking for new indications, and they're doing cutting-edge clinical trials to see what the next one is going to be," Cataldo said.

Follow Kyle Peveto on Twitter, @kylepeveto.

Read the original:
Immunology takes new approach to beating cancer - The Advocate

Department of Immunology: UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX

The Department of Immunology at UTSouthwestern Medical Center was founded in 1998 with six faculty members and a relatively small research facility. Today, weve grown to include:

Our Department is part of the Division of Basic Science of UTSouthwesterns Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.

At its core, our mission is two-fold: advance knowledge and understanding of disorders of the immune system, and train future generations of scientists. These dual functions make the Department of Immunology a key contributor in UTSouthwesterns promise of delivering the future of medicine, today.

Our primary research interests involve the characterization of animal models of human diseases and the delineation of molecular mechanisms mediating normal and abnormal immune functions. Learn more about some of the research currently underway in the Department of Immunology.

The Departments research programs are funded by a combination of endowments and external grant support.

Visit the labs of our faculty members to see their research.

The Department of Immunology trains graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and has new positions and opportunities available each year. Find out more about our broad-based program of graduate training in Immunology.

Read this article:
Department of Immunology: UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX

Immunology Program | Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

The immune system represents a complex, interacting set of cells and molecules controlled by specific genes and their products. Immunology provides the basis for a whole range of problems relevant to other disciplines, including cell biology, structural biology, genetics, and medicine. Thus, the field of immunology crosses through and integrates multiple disciplines of biology and medicine.

The scope of immunology at the Sloan Kettering Instituteincorporates a range of areas and expertise (both basic and translational science). A strength of the Immunology Program is the ability to translate laboratory findings into effective clinical applications.

Read more

Research in the Immunology Program focuses on several areas:

More:
Immunology Program | Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Psychoneuroimmunology – Wikipedia

Psychoneuroimmunology (PNI), also referred to as psychoendoneuroimmunology (PENI) or psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology (PNEI), is the study of the interaction between psychological processes and the nervous and immune systems of the human body.[1] PNI takes an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating psychology, neuroscience, immunology, physiology, genetics, pharmacology, molecular biology, psychiatry, behavioral medicine, infectious diseases, endocrinology, and rheumatology.

The main interests of PNI are the interactions between the nervous and immune systems and the relationships between mental processes and health. PNI studies, among other things, the physiological functioning of the neuroimmune system in health and disease; disorders of the neuroimmune system (autoimmune diseases; hypersensitivities; immune deficiency); and the physical, chemical and physiological characteristics of the components of the neuroimmune system in vitro, in situ, and in vivo.

Interest in the relationship between psychiatric syndromes or symptoms and immune function has been a consistent theme since the beginning of modern medicine.

Claude Bernard, a French physiologist of the Musum national d'Histoire naturelle, formulated the concept of the milieu interieur in the mid-1800s. In 1865, Bernard described the perturbation of this internal state: "... there are protective functions of organic elements holding living materials in reserve and maintaining without interruption humidity, heat and other conditions indispensable to vital activity. Sickness and death are only a dislocation or perturbation of that mechanism" (Bernard, 1865). Walter Cannon, a professor of physiology at Harvard University coined the commonly used term, homeostasis, in his book The Wisdom of the Body, 1932, from the Greek word homoios, meaning similar, and stasis, meaning position. In his work with animals, Cannon observed that any change of emotional state in the beast, such as anxiety, distress, or rage, was accompanied by total cessation of movements of the stomach (Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage, 1915). These studies looked into the relationship between the effects of emotions and perceptions on the autonomic nervous system, namely the sympathetic and parasympathetic responses that initiated the recognition of the freeze, fight or flight response. His findings were published from time to time in professional journals, then summed up in book form in The Mechanical Factors of Digestion, published in 1911.

Hans Selye, a student of Johns Hopkins University and McGill University, and a researcher at Universit de Montral, experimented with animals by putting them under different physical and mental adverse conditions and noted that under these difficult conditions the body consistently adapted to heal and recover. Several years of experimentation that formed the empiric foundation of Selye's concept of the General Adaptation Syndrome. This syndrome consists of an enlargement of the adrenal gland, atrophy of the thymus, spleen, and other lymphoid tissue, and gastric ulcerations.

Selye describes three stages of adaptation, including an initial brief alarm reaction, followed by a prolonged period of resistance, and a terminal stage of exhaustion and death. This foundational work led to a rich line of research on the biological functioning of glucocorticoids.[2]

Mid-20th century studies of psychiatric patients reported immune alterations in psychotic individuals, including lower numbers of lymphocytes[3][4] and poorer antibody response to pertussis vaccination, compared with nonpsychiatric control subjects.[5] In 1964, George F. Solomon, from the University of California in Los Angeles, and his research team coined the term "psychoimmunology" and published a landmark paper: "Emotions, immunity, and disease: a speculative theoretical integration."[6]

In 1975, Robert Ader and Nicholas Cohen, at the University of Rochester, advanced PNI with their demonstration of classic conditioning of immune function, and they subsequently coined the term "psychoneuroimmunology".[7][8] Ader was investigating how long conditioned responses (in the sense of Pavlov's conditioning of dogs to drool when they heard a bell ring) might last in laboratory rats. To condition the rats, he used a combination[clarification needed] of saccharin-laced water (the conditioned stimulus) and the drug Cytoxan, which unconditionally induces nausea and taste aversion and suppression of immune function. Ader was surprised to discover that after conditioning, just feeding the rats saccharin-laced water was associated with the death of some animals and he proposed that they had been immunosuppressed after receiving the conditioned stimulus. Ader (a psychologist) and Cohen (an immunologist) directly tested this hypothesis by deliberately immunizing conditioned and unconditioned animals, exposing these and other control groups to the conditioned taste stimulus, and then measuring the amount of antibody produced. The highly reproducible results revealed that conditioned rats exposed to the conditioned stimulus were indeed immuno suppressed. In other words, a signal via the nervous system (taste) was affecting immune function. This was one of the first scientific experiments that demonstrated that the nervous system can affect the immune system.

In 1981, David L. Felten, then working at the Indiana University School of Medicine, discovered a network of nerves leading to blood vessels as well as cells of the immune system. The researcher, along with his team, also found nerves in the thymus and spleen terminating near clusters of lymphocytes, macrophages, and mast cells, all of which help control immune function. This discovery provided one of the first indications of how neuro-immune interaction occurs.

Ader, Cohen, and Felten went on to edit the groundbreaking book Psychoneuroimmunology in 1981, which laid out the underlying premise that the brain and immune system represent a single, integrated system of defense.

In 1985, research by neuropharmacologist Candace Pert, of the National Institutes of Health at Georgetown University, revealed that neuropeptide-specific receptors are present on the cell walls of both the brain and the immune system.[9][10] The discovery that neuropeptides and neurotransmitters act directly upon the immune system shows their close association with emotions and suggests mechanisms through which emotions, from the limbic system, and immunology are deeply interdependent. Showing that the immune and endocrine systems are modulated not only by the brain but also by the central nervous system itself affected the understanding of emotions, as well as disease.

Contemporary advances in psychiatry, immunology, neurology, and other integrated disciplines of medicine has fostered enormous growth for PNI. The mechanisms underlying behaviorally induced alterations of immune function, and immune alterations inducing behavioral changes, are likely to have clinical and therapeutic implications that will not be fully appreciated until more is known about the extent of these interrelationships in normal and pathophysiological states.

PNI research is looking for the exact mechanisms by which specific brainimmunity effects are achieved. Evidence for nervous systemimmune system interactions exists at several biological levels.

The immune system and the brain talk to each other through signaling pathways. The brain and the immune system are the two major adaptive systems of the body. Two major pathways are involved in this cross-talk: the Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis) and the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). The activation of SNS during an immune response might be aimed to localize the inflammatory response.

The body's primary stress management system is the HPA axis. The HPA axis responds to physical and mental challenge to maintain homeostasis in part by controlling the body's cortisol level. Dysregulation of the HPA axis is implicated in numerous stress-related diseases, with evidence from meta-analyses indicating that different types/duration of stressors and unique personal variables can shape the HPA response.[11] HPA axis activity and cytokines are intrinsically intertwined: inflammatory cytokines stimulate adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and cortisol secretion, while, in turn, glucocorticoids suppress the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines.

Molecules called pro-inflammatory cytokines, which include interleukin-1 (IL-1), Interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-12 (IL-12), Interferon-gamma (IFN-Gamma) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) can affect brain growth as well as neuronal function. Circulating immune cells such as macrophages, as well as glial cells (microglia and astrocytes) secrete these molecules. Cytokine regulation of hypothalamic function is an active area of research for the treatment of anxiety-related disorders.[12]

Cytokines mediate and control immune and inflammatory responses. Complex interactions exist between cytokines, inflammation and the adaptive responses in maintaining homeostasis. Like the stress response, the inflammatory reaction is crucial for survival. Systemic inflammatory reaction results in stimulation of four major programs:[13]

These are mediated by the HPA axis and the SNS. Common human diseases such as allergy, autoimmunity, chronic infections and sepsis are characterized by a dysregulation of the pro-inflammatory versus anti-inflammatory and T helper (Th1) versus (Th2) cytokine balance.

Recent studies show pro-inflammatory cytokine processes take place during depression, mania and bipolar disease, in addition to autoimmune hypersensitivity and chronic infections.

Chronic secretion of stress hormones, glucocorticoids (GCs) and catecholamines (CAs), as a result of disease, may reduce the effect of neurotransmitters, including serotonin[medical citation needed], norepinephrine and dopamine, or other receptors in the brain, thereby leading to the dysregulation of neurohormones. Under stimulation, norepinephrine is released from the sympathetic nerve terminals in organs, and the target immune cells express adrenoreceptors. Through stimulation of these receptors, locally released norepinephrine, or circulating catecholamines such as epinephrine, affect lymphocyte traffic, circulation, and proliferation, and modulate cytokine production and the functional activity of different lymphoid cells.

Glucocorticoids also inhibit the further secretion of corticotropin-releasing hormone from the hypothalamus and ACTH from the pituitary (negative feedback). Under certain conditions stress hormones may facilitate inflammation through induction of signaling pathways and through activation of the Corticotropin-releasing hormone.

These abnormalities and the failure of the adaptive systems to resolve inflammation affect the well-being of the individual, including behavioral parameters, quality of life and sleep, as well as indices of metabolic and cardiovascular health, developing into a "systemic anti-inflammatory feedback" and/or "hyperactivity" of the local pro-inflammatory factors which may contribute to the pathogenesis of disease.

This systemic or neuro-inflammation and neuroimmune activation have been shown to play a role in the etiology of a variety of neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, pain, and AIDS-associated dementia. However, cytokines and chemokines also modulate central nervous system (CNS) function in the absence of overt immunological, physiological, or psychological challenges.[14]

There is now sufficient data to conclude that immune modulation by psychosocial stressors and/or interventions can lead to actual health changes. Although changes related to infectious disease and wound healing have provided the strongest evidence to date, the clinical importance of immunological dysregulation is highlighted by increased risks across diverse conditions and diseases. For example, stressors can produce profound health consequences. In one epidemiological study, all-cause mortality increased in the month following a severe stressor the death of a spouse.[15] Theorists propose that stressful events trigger cognitive and affective responses which, in turn, induce sympathetic nervous system and endocrine changes, and these ultimately impair immune function.[16][17] Potential health consequences are broad, but include rates of infection[18][19] HIV progression[20][21] cancer incidence and progression,[15][22][23] and high rates of infant mortality.[24][25]

Stress is thought to affect immune function through emotional and/or behavioral manifestations such as anxiety, fear, tension, anger and sadness and physiological changes such as heart rate, blood pressure, and sweating. Researchers have suggested that these changes are beneficial if they are of limited duration,[16] but when stress is chronic, the system is unable to maintain equilibrium or homeostasis.

In one of the earlier PNI studies, which was published in 1960, subjects were led to believe that they had accidentally caused serious injury to a companion through misuse of explosives.[26] Since then decades of research resulted in two large meta-analyses, which showed consistent immune dysregulation in healthy people who are experiencing stress.

In the first meta-analysis by Herbert and Cohen in 1993,[27] they examined 38 studies of stressful events and immune function in healthy adults. They included studies of acute laboratory stressors (e.g. a speech task), short-term naturalistic stressors (e.g. medical examinations), and long-term naturalistic stressors (e.g. divorce, bereavement, caregiving, unemployment). They found consistent stress-related increases in numbers of total white blood cells, as well as decreases in the numbers of helper T cells, suppressor T cells, and cytotoxic T cells, B cells, and Natural killer cells (NK). They also reported stress-related decreases in NK and T cell function, and T cell proliferative responses to phytohaemagglutinin [PHA] and concanavalin A [Con A]. These effects were consistent for short-term and long-term naturalistic stressors, but not laboratory stressors.

In the second meta-analysis by Zorrilla et al. in 2001,[28] they replicated Herbert and Cohen's meta-analysis. Using the same study selection procedures, they analyzed 75 studies of stressors and human immunity. Naturalistic stressors were associated with increases in number of circulating neutrophils, decreases in number and percentages of total T cells and helper T cells, and decreases in percentages of Natural killer cell (NK) cells and cytotoxic T cell lymphocytes. They also replicated Herbert and Cohen's finding of stress-related decreases in NKCC and T cell mitogen proliferation to Phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) and Concanavalin A (Con A).

More recently, there has been increasing interest in the links between interpersonal stressors and immune function. For example, marital conflict, loneliness, caring for a person with a chronic medical condition, and other forms on interpersonal stress dysregulate immune function.[29]

Release of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) from the hypothalamus is influenced by stress.

Furthermore, stressors that enhance the release of CRH suppress the function of the immune system; conversely, stressors that depress CRH release potentiate immunity.

Glutamate agonists, cytokine inhibitors, vanilloid-receptor agonists, catecholamine modulators, ion-channel blockers, anticonvulsants, GABA agonists (including opioids and cannabinoids), COX inhibitors, acetylcholine modulators, melatonin analogs (such as Ramelton), adenosine receptor antagonists and several miscellaneous drugs (including biologics like Passiflora edulis) are being studied for their psychoneuroimmunological effects.

For example, SSRIs, SNRIs and tricyclic antidepressants acting on serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine receptors have been shown to be immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory against pro-inflammatory cytokine processes, specifically on the regulation of IFN-gamma and IL-10, as well as TNF-alpha and IL-6 through a psychoneuroimmunological process.[32][33][34] Antidepressants have also been shown to suppress TH1 upregulation.[32][33][34][35][36]

Tricyclic and dual serotonergic-noradrenergic reuptake inhibition by SNRIs (or SSRI-NRI combinations), have also shown analgesic properties additionally.[37][38] According to recent evidences antidepressants also seem to exert beneficial effects in experimental autoimmune neuritis in rats by decreasing Interferon-beta (IFN-beta) release or augmenting NK activity in depressed patients.[12]

These studies warrant investigation for antidepressants for use in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric illness and that a psychoneuroimmunological approach may be required for optimal pharmacotherapy in many diseases.[39] Future antidepressants may be made to specifically target the immune system by either blocking the actions of pro-inflammatory cytokines or increasing the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines.[40]

Extrapolating from the observations that positive emotional experiences boost the immune system, Roberts speculates that intensely positive emotional experiences sometimes brought about during mystical experiences occasioned by psychedelic medicinesmay boost the immune system powerfully. Research on salivary IgA supports this hypothesis, but experimental testing has not been done.[41]

Here is the original post:
Psychoneuroimmunology - Wikipedia