What makes a disease curable?

Sasha

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Basically, I'm wondering why some diseases can't be cured when others can - that is, why we can manipulate some aspects of our biology and not others.

I'm wondering this in the context of the kind of unpleasant life-long drugs we might end up on if @Jonathan Edwards's paper on Qeios is right about what's wrong with us, and if we would fall into the category of 'diseases that can never be cured'.
 
I'm wondering this in the context of the kind of unpleasant life-long drugs we might end up on if @Jonathan Edwards's paper on Qeios is right about what's wrong with us, and if we would fall into the category of 'diseases that can never be cured'.

I don't think I said anything about life long nasty treatments or not curing ME/CFS. If our proposal on Qeios is right then re-balancing T cell populations ought to return the system to normal. If the rogue T cells are an overexpanded CD4 cyttoxic population then a single dose of the right monoclonal antibody might sort that in a couple of hours. But clearly things are complicated, with various possibilities, some of which might require longer term treatment until we have the right technology.

The answer to the question about why some diseases are curable is a full term's worth of pathology lectures. But there are some simple bits.

Many diseases are defined by the presence of cells with a new packet of disease instructions written in DNA. So every morning you wake up with all the healthy instructions you were born with plus these bad instructions. If you have the disease haemophilia you were born with bad instructions in all cells, including the ones that are supposed to make blood clotting factors. Curing purely genetic disease is now becoming possible by adding in the missing instructions by gene therapy.

In infectious disease the DNA instructions are in the bacteria or viruses. Curing simply requires getting rid of the microbes with their instructions. If it is a virus that incorporates its instructions into your cells it is potentially trickier but most of those infections are not widespread. In AIDS the instructions are mostly only incorporated into lymphocytes I think and you can make new ones.

Some diseases occur because time and environment acting on a body built with good instructions end up making it deteriorate. Smoking destroys lung airspaces. Some people are born with genes that code for joints falling apart sixty years later - osteoarthritis. You can cure that with a hip replacement in a sense. But very often the instructions for building a body cannot be used to repair it. It is a bit like a potter who, after lengthy work at the wheel finds the pot has developed an asymmetry. There is nothing she can do on the wheel to put this right. It always progresses until the pot fails. The growth of a joint with two surfaces that fit exactly right cannot be re-run using the DNA that made it. You would have to grow a new entire joint in a petri dish and transplant it.

High blood pressure is another disease where it seems that under certain influences the vessel structures that have been built progressively get less and less good at regulating pressure up or down and once pressures start to rise they tend to go on rising. Hard to cure without re-building the vessels from scratch.

For diseases of the immune system like RA and lupus, and I am now prepared to bet ME/CFS, the problem mostly seems to be that over time you generate lymphocytes that vary in their instructions deliberately (to deal with different infections) and there are certain ways that, again, a shift in the stock of the library of instructions tends to perpetuate itself. The cells with dodgy instructions tell each other to make more copies of themselves. There are examples where the problem can right itself or be abolished as in the case of immune thrombocytopenia cured by rituximab. But in most cases it is hard to clear out enough of the cells with the wrong instructions. I think we coud have done that by now if people put their minds to it and it will be done in the future but it has been very slow progress since 2000.

Cancer of course is due to all the offspring of a single cell that developed a mistake in its DNA instructions that led to more mistakes and a failure of control of division as a result. Curing depends on getting rid of every one of the cells or at last so many that the last few get cleared away by the immune system. You can of course of cut the cells out in one go. Lots of cancers are now curable. Ironically, cancer is the most curable of all diseases. That has been achieved by really focused research. The same should have been done for RA and lupus and the same should be done for ME/CFS. Everything I see [points to it being a reversible problem. Genetic risk factors will still be there but they do not in themselves make the disease.
 
Thanks, @Jonathan Edwards - that was an absolutely fascinating explanation and makes me wonder how your book is going! Are you still working on it or have you got sidetracked onto other things?

But in most cases it is hard to clear out enough of the cells with the wrong instructions. I think we coud have done that by now if people put their minds to it and it will be done in the future but it has been very slow progress since 2000.
It's good to know that you don't think there's any in-principle problem with tackling that problem. Once we know more about exactly what needs doing, our next job is going to be doing our best to make that kind of progress happen.
 
I don't think I said anything about life long nasty treatments or not curing ME/CFS. If our proposal on Qeios is right then re-balancing T cell populations ought to return the system to normal. If the rogue T cells are an overexpanded CD4 cyttoxic population then a single dose of the right monoclonal antibody might sort that in a couple of hours. But clearly things are complicated, with various possibilities, some of which might require longer term treatment until we have the right technology.
I'd thought that if it was long-lived plasma cells or something, that we'd be on a treadmill of treatment with immunosuppressive things like dara, but it sounds as though I have misunderstood (which is good news!).

I didn't know a monoclonal antibody could squash rogue T-cells in a couple of hours! How long does it take people to feel better, in diseases that get that kind of treatment?
 
Forgive me if I missed this in your paper, but how would we establish whether this is the case?

You grant Jackie Cliff five million quid to do more detailed studies of T cell and related populations, both numerating and functional and we make use of every bit of data that comes our way to focus on the right lot of cells. I have suggested ELISpot type studies of short term co-culture of circulating cells but there may be better ways.
 
I'm wondering this in the context of the kind of unpleasant life-long drugs we might end up on

I'm usually one of the first to point out the risks of using immune modulating drugs, but I mean it in the context of iffy evidence for their use.

If trials show that a treatment significantly modifies symptoms in a good proportion of patients, it's a different kettle of haddock.

Some people take these therapies for years—decades even. Side effects might still be more tolerable than the disease, and some resolve once people get used to a medication. After 10 years of zero side effects I'm sat here with inflamed red blobs all over my legs, because my body's decided it doesn't like my DMARD any more. But while I'm waiting for an appointment, they're infinitely preferable to an arthritis flare.

If we do end up having to take meds continuously or in pulses, it's not the end of the world. It's surprising what people adapt to, specially when the alternative's worse.
 
You grant Jackie Cliff five million quid to do more detailed studies of T cell and related populations, both numerating and functional and we make use of every bit of data that comes our way to focus on the right lot of cells. I have suggested ELISpot type studies of short term co-culture of circulating cells but there may be better ways.

I'll get my chequebook!

Do you think that Jackie is likely to get that kind of funding once all of our DecodeME etc ducks have lined up over the course of the next little while?
 
I didn't know a monoclonal antibody could squash rogue T-cells in a couple of hours! How long does it take people to feel better, in diseases that get that kind of treatment?

I don't know. There aren't many closely analogous T-cell driven diseases. My guess for our proposed model would be two or three days.

Daratumumab I see chiefly as a means to prove which cells need targeting. Once that is known I think it likely that a different drug would be chosen.
 
You grant Jackie Cliff five million quid to do more detailed studies of T cell and related populations, both numerating and functional and we make use of every bit of data that comes our way to focus on the right lot of cells. I have suggested ELISpot type studies of short term co-culture of circulating cells but there may be better ways.
In my head, the budget for that work was about £100,000.

Still, if Jackie Cliff puts in for the grant, we can all get behind her...
 
Last edited:
In AIDS the instructions are mostly only incorporated into lymphocytes I think and you can make new ones.
Just couldn't resist popping in on this since I'm about to spend a few months on this exact question. Mostly in memory T cells, but almost certainly in tissue resident macrophages as well, particularly microglia. Which is the biggest challenge for curing AIDS, since eliminating infected microglia without causing a whole host of other issues is way more of a pipe dream than eliminating all infected T cells. Still, I think there are some possibilities that don't necessarily involve killing all infected cells which may be promising in the next few decades
 
Do you think that Jackie is likely to get that kind of funding once all of our DecodeME etc ducks have lined up over the course of the next little while?

I really don't know enough about the lie of the political land. Jo and I asked Jackie to help with the paper because she knows about T cells and ME/CFS. I was very heartened when it seemed that we agreed on so much and Jackie was able to tease out the relevant T cell functions and how they fitted in. I think she has some more data to publish. We didn't go into her personal plans but I think she is ideally placed to capitalise on what we learn from all the genetic studies.
 
Very interesting. I judiciously added "I think" to that bit!

I guess that the AIDS virus may incorporate into some cells but the cells may show no interest in replicating the DNA? Especially if they are not dividing much.
Yes it seems like they're just one additional hidden corner of the latent host reservoir. There have been studies on terminally ill individuals who volunteer to stop anti-viral therapy for AIDS to see the dynamics of viral re-activation, and it seems like the populations that bounce back are overwhelmingly the ones that were hiding out silently in clonally expanded T cells. However, viral replication from microglia has been observed and is associated with severe neurological pathology in AIDS.

So it's likely that HIV from T cells tends to dominate during reactivation because it was just more numerous to begin with and those strains outcompete strains that harbored in the microglia. But even if you managed to kill off all the T cells harboring HIV, as soon as you got any viral reactivation in microglia, the virus would cross the blood brain barrier and just find new lymphocyte targets.

There's some interesting work looking at elite controllers--the lucky ones who can suppress HIV without medication. Basically the idea from them is that it might be possible epigenetically to make sure that latent virus in those hard-to-reach hidden corners stays in the latent phase forever and never reactivates. Either way it probably wouldn't be a "cure" unless you could somehow trick host cells into maintaining that epigenetic state on their own indefinitely without any nasty off-target effects
 
Last edited:
There's some interesting work looking at elite controllers--the lucky ones who can suppress HIV without medication. Basically the idea from them is that it might be possible epigenetically to make sure that latent virus in those hard-to-reach hidden corners stays in the latent phase forever and never reactivates. Either way it probably wouldn't be a "cure" unless you could somehow trick host cells into maintaining that epigenetic state on their own indefinitely without any nasty off-target effects
Didn’t they recently cure a HIV patient with a bone marrow transplant from someone that only had half of that suppression gene? Cure might be too far, I think they got the levels down to below whatever they were able to detect.
 
In my head, the budget for that work was about £100,000. :(
Stanford did a pilot study and it required a LOT of tubes of blood to get enough of the rarer T cell types to analyse further. This could have an impact on patients selected. Mark Davis presented on a "autoimmune" CD4 T cell type they were looking at and they came to the conclusion a longitudinal study was needed. The researcher running the experiment left so work was not continued.

The Selin lab has studied populations of T cells (multiple NIH grants). Patient numbers are small even with NIH funding as they had to use fresh blood and the experiments were time consuming. There was a comment I think from someone associated with the study that they may soon be able to use frozen blood but we'll see. They see different patients have different distribtions of T cell populations e.g. some with double positive CD4CD8 T cells, others with expanded gamma-delta T cell populations for example.

Jackie Cliff's work has been able to secure NIH funding for many years. If I remember right she analysed a large number of patient T cells as part of a CureME immune study. The paper and the Selin Lab have some differing results, supposedly dependant on the method used for sorting cells. I don't think there was anything standing out except maybe MAIT cells in the CureME paper.

All this to say even 5MM pounds might not be enough for a well powered study looking at finding a disease associated T cell subtype(s). I think it's key to first figure out the key experiments to be run and what techniques will be required to determine pilot results that provide good data that can be believed to drive follow up work. I would love to be proved wrong and a simple test can provide a clean result.

Note : "autoimmune" could mean cytotoxic as they were looking at cytotoxic CD8 cells at the same time? I don't know for sure.

EDIT : today on X Dr maureen Hanson stated that the author of the epingentics in immune cells stufy is working on a new manuscript. Fingers crossed prehaps a pointer there?
 
Last edited:
Didn’t they recently cure a HIV patient with a bone marrow transplant from someone that only had half of that suppression gene? Cure might be too far, I think they got the levels down to below whatever they were able to detect.
Yup that was the Berlin patient, and is considered "cured" because there are no signs of viral reactivation in the absence of anti-viral therapy. There may still be latent virus but if it's there, it's being suppressed in the host cells [edit: as latent virus].

However, I believe that they found the Berlin patient also had their own genetic mutation which may have limited how far the virus was able to spread initially. Iirc there have been other transplant attempts that failed, likely because those individuals had more substantial tissue-resident latent reservoirs than the Berlin patient.

[Edit: I know there have been others since the Berlin patient, but host genetics still seems to play a big role in those cases]
 
Last edited:
Ah sorry @Utsikt I think you were talking about the "second" Berlin patient if you meant within the last year. I think it was a case where both the host and the donor had one copy of the CCR5 allele so it still would have been a matter of limiting initial spread on the host side.

 
Ah sorry @Utsikt I think you were talking about the "second" Berlin patient if you meant within the last year. I think it was a case where both the host and the donor had one copy of the CCR5 allele so it still would have been a matter of limiting initial spread on the host side.

Yeah, that’s probably the one I was thinking about. Only know it was recent.
 
Back
Top Bottom