Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3)-dependent Rac exchanger 2 (PREX2) is a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for the Ras-related C3 botulinum toxin substrate 1 (Rac1) GTPase, facilitating the exchange of GDP for GTP on Rac1. GTP-bound Rac1 then activates its downstream effectors, including p21-activated kinases (PAKs). PREX2 and Rac1 are frequently mutated in cancer and have key roles within the insulin-signaling pathway. Rac1 can be inactivated by multiple mechanisms; however, negative regulation by insulin is not well understood. Here, we show that in response to being activated after insulin stimulation, Rac1 initiates its own inactivation by decreasing PREX2 GEF activity. Following PREX2-mediated activation of Rac1 by the second messengers PIP3 or Gβγ, we found that PREX2 was phosphorylated through a PAK-dependent mechanism. PAK-mediated phosphorylation of PREX2 reduced GEF activity toward Rac1 by inhibiting PREX2 binding to PIP3 and Gβγ. Cell fractionation experiments also revealed that phosphorylation prevented PREX2 from localizing to the cellular membrane. Furthermore, the onset of insulin-induced phosphorylation of PREX2 was delayed compared with AKT. Altogether, we propose that second messengers activate the Rac1 signal, which sets in motion a cascade whereby PAKs phosphorylate and negatively regulate PREX2 to decrease Rac1 activation. This type of regulation would allow for transient activation of the PREX2-Rac1 signal and may be relevant in multiple physiological processes, including diseases such as diabetes and cancer when insulin signaling is chronically activated.
© 2015 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

In current industry practice, it is difficult to assess QT effects at potential therapeutic doses based on Phase I dose-escalation trials in oncology due to data scarcity, particularly in combinations trials. In this paper, we propose to use dose-concentration and concentration-QT models jointly to model the exposures and effects of multiple drugs in combination. The fitted models then can be used to make early predictions for QT prolongation to aid choosing recommended dose combinations for further investigation. The models consider potential correlation between concentrations of test drugs and potential drug-drug interactions at PK and QT levels. In addition, this approach allows for the assessment of the probability of QT prolongation exceeding given thresholds of clinical significance. The performance of this approach was examined via simulation under practical scenarios for dose-escalation trials for a combination of two drugs. The simulation results show that invaluable information of QT effects at therapeutic dose combinations can be gained by the proposed approaches. Early detection of dose combinations with substantial QT prolongation is evaluated effectively through the CIs of the predicted peak QT prolongation at each dose combination. Furthermore, the probability of QT prolongation exceeding a certain threshold is also computed to support early detection of safety signals while accounting for uncertainty associated with data from Phase I studies. While the prediction of QT effects is sensitive to the dose escalation process, the sensitivity and limited sample size should be considered when providing support to the decision-making process for further developing certain dose combinations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

This phase I/II trial evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of afatinib plus temozolomide as well as the efficacy and safety of afatinib as monotherapy (A) or with temozolomide (AT) vs temozolomide monotherapy (T) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM).
Phase I followed a traditional 3 + 3 dose-escalation design to determine MTD. Treatment cohorts were: afatinib 20, 40, and 50 mg/day (plus temozolomide 75 mg/m(2)/day for 21 days per 28-day cycle). In phase II, participants were randomized (stratified by age and KPS) to receive A, T or AT; A was dosed at 40 mg/day and T at 75 mg/m(2) for 21 of 28 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS-6). Participants were treated until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression.
Recommended phase II dose was 40 mg/day (A) + T based on safety data from phase I (n = 32). Most frequent AEs in phase II (n = 119) were diarrhea (71% [A], 82% [AT]) and rash (71% [A] and 69% [AT]). Afatinib and temozolomide pharmacokinetics were unaffected by coadministration. Independently assessed PFS-6 rate was 3% (A), 10% (AT), and 23% (T). Median PFS was longer in afatinib-treated participants with epidermal growth factor receptor (EFGR) vIII-positive tumors versus EGFRvIII-negative tumors. Best overall response included partial response in 1 (A), 2 (AT), and 4 (T) participants and stable disease in 14 (A), 14 (AT), and 21 (T) participants.
Afatinib has a manageable safety profile but limited single-agent activity in unselected recurrent GBM patients.
© The Author(s) 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

Cryopreserved hematopoietic stem cell products are widely used for certain hematologic malignancies. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is the most widely used cryoprotective agent (CPA) today, but due to indications of cellular toxicity, changes of the cellular epigenetic state, and patient-related side effects, there is an increasing demand for DMSO-free alternatives. We therefore investigated whether Pentaisomaltose (PIM), a low-molecular-weight carbohydrate (1 kDa), can be used for cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cells, more specifically hematopoietic progenitor cell apheresis (HPC(A)) product.
We cryopreserved patient or donor HPC(A) products using 10% DMSO or 16% PIM and quantified the recovery of CD34+ cells and CD34+ subpopulations by multicolor flow cytometry. In addition, we compared the frequency of HPCs after DMSO and PIM cryopreservation using the colony-forming cells (CFCs) assay.
The mean CD34+ cell recovery was 56.3 ± 23.7% (11.4%-97.3%) and 58.2 ± 10.0% (45.7%-76.9%) for 10% DMSO and 16% PIM, respectively. The distribution of CD34+ cell subpopulations was similar when comparing DMSO or PIM as CPA. CFC assay showed mean colony numbers of 70.7 ± 25.4 (range, 37.8-115.5) and 67.7 ± 15.7 (range, 48-86) for 10% DMSO and 16% PIM, respectively.
Our findings demonstrate that PIM cryopreservation of HPC(A) products provides recovery of CD34+ cells, CD34+ subpopulations, and CFCs similar to that of DMSO cryopreservation and therefore may have the potential to be used for cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cells.
© 2016 The Authors Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AABB.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

The induction of apoptosis in tumor cells represents a promising approach to the treatment of cancer. Accordingly, compounds that interact with the Bcl-2 family of proteins, which are critical regulators of the apoptotic process, have been widely pursued as potential anticancer agents. While encouraging antitumor activity in clinical trials has been observed with some of these compounds, their therapeutic utility is often limited by accompanying toxicities associated with the interaction with this family of proteins. As a result, there has been recent interest in identifying agents that can selectively target a single Bcl-2 family member (such as Bcl-2 or Bcl-xL), with the expectation that improved therapeutic margins can be achieved. In this review, we outline the biological rationale behind this approach, and highlight key examples of selective compounds from the recent literature alongside the structural basis for the reported selectivity.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!