Phase 1 study of MRX34, a liposomal miR-34a mimic, in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: In this first-in-human, Phase 1 study of a microRNA-based cancer therapy, the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of MRX34, a liposomal mimic of microRNA-34a (miR-34a), was determined and evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Adults with various solid tumours refractory to standard treatments were enrolled in 3 + 3 dose-escalation cohorts and, following RP2D determination, expansion cohorts. MRX34, with oral dexamethasone premedication, was given intravenously daily for 5 days in 3-week cycles. RESULTS: Common all-cause adverse events observed in 85 patients enrolled included fever (% all grade/G3: 72/4), chills (53/14), fatigue (51/9), back/neck pain (36/5), nausea (36/1) and dyspnoea (25/4). The RP2D was 70 mg/m2 for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 93 mg/m2 for non-HCC cancers. Pharmacodynamic results showed delivery of miR-34a to tumours, and dose-dependent modulation of target gene expression in white blood cells. Three patients had PRs and 16 had SD lasting ≥4 cycles (median, 19 weeks, range, 11-55). CONCLUSION: MRX34 treatment with dexamethasone premedication demonstrated a manageable toxicity profile in most patients and some clinical activity. Although the trial was closed early due to serious immune-mediated AEs that resulted in four patient deaths, dose-dependent modulation of relevant target genes provides proof-of-concept for miRNA-based cancer therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01829971.

Phase I study of MRX34, a liposomal miR-34a mimic, administered twice weekly in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose Naturally occurring tumor suppressor microRNA-34a (miR-34a) downregulates the expression of >30 oncogenes across multiple oncogenic pathways, as well as genes involved in tumor immune evasion, but is lost or under-expressed in many malignancies. This first-in-human, phase I study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of MRX34, a liposomal miR-34a mimic, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Adult patients with solid tumors refractory to standard treatment were enrolled in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation trial. MRX34 was given intravenously twice weekly (BIW) for three weeks in 4-week cycles. Results Forty-seven patients with various solid tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; n = 14), were enrolled. Median age was 60 years, median prior therapies was 4 (range, 1-12), and most were Caucasian (68%) and male (57%). Most common adverse events (AEs) included fever (all grade %/G3%: 64/2), fatigue (57/13), back pain (57/11), nausea (49/2), diarrhea (40/11), anorexia (36/4), and vomiting (34/4). Laboratory abnormalities included lymphopenia (G3%/G4%: 23/9), neutropenia (13/11), thrombocytopenia (17/0), increased AST (19/4), hyperglycemia (13/2), and hyponatremia (19/2). Dexamethasone premedication was required to manage infusion-related AEs. The MTD for non-HCC patients was 110 mg/m2, with two patients experiencing dose-limiting toxicities of G3 hypoxia and enteritis at 124 mg/m2. The half-life was >24 h, and Cmax and AUC increased with increasing dose. One patient with HCC achieved a prolonged confirmed PR lasting 48 weeks, and four patients experienced SD lasting ≥4 cycles. Conclusion MRX34 treatment with dexamethasone premedication was associated with acceptable safety and showed evidence of antitumor activity in a subset of patients with refractory advanced solid tumors. The MTD for the BIW schedule was 110 mg/m2 for non-HCC and 93 mg/m2 for HCC patients. Additional dose schedules of MRX34 have been explored to improve tolerability.

Genetic incorporation of Nε-acetyllysine reveals a novel acetylation-sumoylation switch in yeast.

The lysine acetylation of proteins plays a key role in regulating protein functions, thereby controlling a wide range of cellular processes. Despite the prevalence and significance of lysine acetylation in eukaryotes, however, its systematic study has been challenged by the technical limitations of conventional approaches for selective lysine acetylation in vivo. Here, we report the in vivo study of lysine acetylation via the genetic incorporation of Nε-acetyllysine in yeast. We demonstrate that a newly discovered acetylation-sumoylation switch precisely controls the localization and cellular function of the yeast septin protein, Cdc11, during the cell cycle. This approach should facilitate the comprehensive in vivo study of lysine acetylation across a wide range of proteins in eukaryotic organisms. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Biochemistry of Synthetic Biology - Recent Developments" Guest Editor: Dr. Ilka Heinemann and Dr. Patrick O'Donoghue.

Phase II study of axitinib with doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib is an orally active and potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib combined with cisplatin/gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily [bid]; titrated up or down to 2-10 mg bid) was administered orally on a continuous schedule with cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) intravenously [i.v.] every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle), and was continued as monotherapy after completion of six cycles (maximum) of chemotherapy. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. RESULTS: Of the 38 patients treated, one (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response and 14 (36.8%) patients had a partial response; nine (23.7%) patients showed stable disease and three (7.9%) patients had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months, and median overall survival was 14.2 months. The estimated probability of survival at 12 months and 24 months was 63.2% and 30.8%, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropaenia and hypertension (13.2% each). Three (7.9%) patients experienced haemoptysis, of which one case (2.6%) was fatal. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the combination of axitinib and cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC and the fatal haemoptysis rate was low. However, without a reference arm (cisplatin/gemcitabine alone), it is not conclusive whether the combination is better than chemotherapy alone. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration # NCT00735904, on August 13, 2008.

Strain-dependent response to Cu(2+) in the expression of laccase in Pycnoporus coccineus.

The effects of Cu(2+) on the activity and expression of laccase were investigated in seven different strains of Pycnoporus coccineus collected from different regions in Korea. Cu(2+) was toxic to mycelial growth at concentrations greater than 0.5 mM CuSO4 and showed complete growth inhibition at 1 mM in the liquid culture. However, Cu(2+) significantly upregulated the extracellular laccase activity at 0.2 mM in five strains of P. coccineus, IUM4209, IUM0032, IUM0450, IUM0470, and IUM4093, whereas two strains, IUM0253 and IUM0049, did not respond to Cu(2+), despite being closely related to the other five strains. Subsequent RT-PCR analysis also showed that the laccase mRNA was highly expressed only in the former five strains in the presence of Cu(2+). Taken together, these results indicate that Cu(2+) regulates expression of the laccase gene in a strain-dependent manner. The five strains commonly produced a single predominant laccase protein with a molecular weight of 68 kDa. Peptide sequencing revealed that the laccase was a homolog of Lcc1 of P. coccineus, which was isolated in China. The Cu(2+)-induced culture supernatants exhibited high degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, indicating that the 68-kDa laccase is the primary extracellular degradative enzyme in P. coccineus.

Treatment of advanced thyroid cancer with axitinib: Phase 2 study with pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and quality-of-life assessments.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase 2 trial, axitinib was active and well tolerated in patients with advanced thyroid cancer. In this second phase 2 trial, the efficacy and safety of axitinib were evaluated further in this population, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. METHODS: Patients (N = 52) with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced medullary or differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory or not amenable to iodine-131 received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetic parameters, and patient-reported outcomes assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall ORR was 35% (18 partial responses), and 18 patients had stable disease for ≥16 weeks. The median PFS was 16.1 months, and the median OS was 27.2 months. All-causality, grade ≥3 adverse events (>5%) were fatigue, dyspnea, diarrhea, decreased weight, pain in extremity, hypertension, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypocalcemia, and myalgia. Patients who had greater axitinib exposure had a longer median PFS. Quality of life was maintained during treatment with axitinib, and no significant deterioration in symptoms or interference in daily life caused by symptoms, assessed on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory subscales, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib has activity and a manageable safety profile while maintaining quality of life, and it represents an additional treatment option for patients with advanced thyroid cancer.

Randomized phase II study of pemetrexed/cisplatin with or without axitinib for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3 in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin was evaluated in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Overall, 170 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib at a starting dose of 5-mg twice daily continuously plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of up to six 21-day cycles (arm I); axitinib on days 2 through 19 of each cycle plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (arm II); or pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 8.0, 7.9, and 7.1 months in arms I, II, and III, respectively (hazard ratio: arms I vs. III, 0.89 [P = 0.36] and arms II vs. III, 1.02 [P = 0.54]). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (arm I), 14.7 months (arm II), and 15.9 months (arm III). Objective response rates (ORRs) for axitinib-containing arms were 45.5% (arm I) and 39.7% (arm II) compared with 26.3% for pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). Gastrointestinal disorders and fatigue were frequently reported across all treatment arms. The most common all-causality grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension in axitinib-containing arms (20% and 17%, arms I and II, respectively) and fatigue with pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (16%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin was generally well tolerated. Axitinib combinations resulted in non-significant differences in PFS and numerically higher ORR compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00768755 (October 7, 2008).

Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised double-blind phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Population pharmacokinetic data suggest axitinib plasma exposure correlates with efficacy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib dose titration might optimise exposure and improve outcomes. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib dose titration in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients were enrolled from 49 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, and USA. Patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a 4 week lead-in period. Those patients with blood pressure 150/90 mm Hg or lower, no grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects, no dose reductions, and no more than two antihypertensive drugs for 2 consecutive weeks were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either masked titration with axitinib to total twice daily doses of 7 mg, and then 10 mg, if tolerated, or placebo titration. Patients who did not meet these criteria continued without titration. The primary objective was comparison of the proportion of patients achieving an objective response between randomised groups. Safety analyses were based on all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2009, and Feb 28, 2011, we enrolled 213 patients, of whom 112 were randomly assigned to either the axitinib titration group (56 patients) or the placebo titration group (56 patients). 91 were not eligible for titration, and ten withdrew during the lead-in period. 30 patients (54%, 95% CI 40-67) in the axitinib titration group had an objective response, as did 19 patients (34%, 22-48]) in the placebo titration group (one-sided p=0·019). 54 (59%, 95% CI 49-70) of non-randomised patients achieved an objective response. Common grade 3 or worse, all-causality adverse events in treated patients were hypertension (ten [18%] of 56 in the axitinib titration group vs five [9%] of 56 in the placebo titration group vs 45 [49%] of 91 in the non-randomised group), diarrhoea (seven [13%] vs two [4%] vs eight [9%]), and decreased weight (four [7%] vs three [5%] vs six [7%]). One or more all-causality serious adverse events were reported in 15 (27%) patients in the axitinib titration group, 13 (23%) patients in the placebo titration group, and 35 (38%) non-randomised patients. The most common serious adverse events in all 213 patients were disease progression and dehydration (eight each [4%]), and diarrhoea, vomiting, pneumonia, and decreased appetite (four each [2%]). INTERPRETATION: The greater proportion of patients in the axitinib titration group achieving an objective response supports the concept of individual axitinib dose titration in selected patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib shows clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naive patients with this disease.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. METHODS: Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: Median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 16.7-23.4) with axitinib and 19.2 months (17.5-22.3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.969, 95% CI 0.800-1.174; one-sided p=0.3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.7-9.2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4.7-6.5) with sorafenib (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.552-0.779; one-sided p<0.0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand-foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20.7 months (95% CI 18.4-24.6) versus 12.9 months (10.1-20.4) in the axitinib group (p=0.0116), and 20.2 months (17.1-32.0) versus 14.8 months (12.0-17.7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0.0020). INTERPRETATION: Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Fungal degradation of phenylacetate focusing on CRISPR/Cas9-assisted characterization of two oxidative enzyme genes of Akanthomyces muscarius AM1091.

The degradation of phenylacetate (PA) was investigated as a model to explore aromatic compound breakdown in the fungal system. Fungal strains capable of utilizing PA as their sole carbon source were isolated using a minimal solid medium supplemented with 0.5 % PA. Subsequent cultivation in minimum liquid medium revealed that selected fungal strains, including Trametes versicolor TV0876 and TV3295, Paecilomyces hepiali PH4477, and Akanthomyces muscarius AM1091, efficiently removed PA within 24 h. HPLC analysis of culture supernatants from various fungal strains revealed a time-dependent accumulation of 2-hydroxyphenylacetate (2-HPA) and 4-hydroxyphenylacetate (4-HPA), two key major metabolic products primarily found in ascomycetes and basidiomycetes, respectively. This suggests that the first hydroxylation of PA is catalyzed by two distinct hydroxylases, one for each fungal group. Furthermore, fungal species that make 4-HPA also produce phenylethanol (PE), indicating a distinct catabolic mechanism to remove PA by direct reduction of PA to PE. A. muscarius AM1091, identified as the most efficient PA degrader in this study, was studied further to determine the biochemical pathway of PA degradation. RNA-Seq and RT-PCR analyses of AM1091 revealed two oxidative enzyme genes, CYP1 and DIO4, upregulated in the presence of PA. Targeted disruption utilizing preassembled Cas9-gRNA ribonucleoprotein complexes and homologous DNAs harboring the URA3 gene as an auxotrophic marker resulted in the cyp1 and dio4 mutant strains. The cyp1 mutant was incapable of converting PA to 2-HPA, indicating its involvement in the C2 hydroxylation, whereas the dio4 mutant was unable to degrade 2,5-dihydroxyphenylacetate (2,5-DHPA), resulting in the accumulation of 2,5-DHPA. Our findings indicate that A. muscarius AM1091 degrades PA through the activities of CYP1 and DIO4 for the C2 hydroxylation and subsequent ring-opening reactions, respectively.

Axitinib and/or bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC.

Efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis of Japanese patients from the global randomized Phase 3 AXIS trial.

OBJECTIVE: Axitinib is a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. The efficacy and safety of axitinib in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were evaluated. METHODS: A subgroup analysis was conducted in Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized Phase III trial of axitinib versus sorafenib after failure of one prior systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Twenty-five (of 361) and 29 (of 362) patients randomized to the axitinib and sorafenib arms, respectively, were Japanese and included in this analysis. Median progression-free survival in Japanese patients was 12.1 months (95% confidence interval 8.6 to not estimable) for axitinib and 4.9 months (95% confidence interval 2.8-6.6) for sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.390; 95% confidence interval 0.130-1.173; stratified one-sided P = 0.0401). The objective response rate was 52.0% for axitinib and 3.4% for sorafenib (P = 0.0001). The common all-causality adverse events (all grades) in Japanese patients were dysphonia (68%), hypertension (64%), hand-foot syndrome (64%) and diarrhea (56%) for axitinib, and hand-foot syndrome (86%), hypertension (62%) and diarrhea (52%) for sorafenib. The safety profiles of axitinib and sorafenib in Japanese patients were generally similar to those observed in the overall population, with the exceptions of higher incidences of hypertension, dysphonia, hand-foot syndrome, hypothyroidism and stomatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, consistent with the results in the overall population, providing a new targeted therapy for these Japanese patients.

The Cas9-gRNA ribonucleoprotein complex-mediated editing of pyrG in Ganoderma lucidum and unexpected insertion of contaminated DNA fragments.

Gene editing is a promising alternative to traditional breeding for the generation of new mushroom strains. However, the current approach frequently uses Cas9-plasmid DNA to facilitate mushroom gene editing, which can leave residual foreign DNA in the chromosomal DNA raising concerns regarding genetically modified organisms. In this study, we successfully edited pyrG of Ganoderma lucidum using a preassembled Cas9-gRNA ribonucleoprotein complex, which primarily induced a double-strand break (DSB) at the fourth position prior to the protospacer adjacent motif. Of the 66 edited transformants, 42 had deletions ranging from a single base to large deletions of up to 796 bp, with 30 being a single base deletion. Interestingly, the remaining 24 contained inserted sequences with variable sizes at the DSB site that originated from the fragmented host mitochondrial DNA, E. coli chromosomal DNA, and the Cas9 expression vector DNA. The latter two were thought to be contaminated DNAs that were not removed during the purification process of the Cas9 protein. Despite this unexpected finding, the study demonstrated that editing G. lucidum genes using the Cas9-gRNA complex is achievable with comparable efficiency to the plasmid-mediated editing system.

Structural Analysis of the A Mating Type Locus and Development of the Mating Type Marker of Agaricus bisporus var. bisporus.

Karyotyping in Agaricus bisporus is crucial for both the isolation of homokaryotic strains and the confirmation of dikaryon establishment. For the verification of the karyotype, the A mating type loci of two homokaryotic strains, H39 and H97, were analyzed through comparative sequence analysis. The two loci showed major differences in two sequence regions designated as Region 1 and Region 2. H97 had a putative DNA transposon in Region 1 that had target site duplications (TSDs), terminal inverted repeats (TIRs), and a loop sequence, in contrast to H39, which only had the insertional target sequence. Homologous sequences of the transposon were discovered in the two different chromosomes of H97 and in one of H39, all of which have different TSDs but share high sequence homology in TIR. Region 2 shared three consensus sequences between H97 and H39. However, it was only from H97 that a large insertional sequence of unknown origin was discovered between the first and second consensus sequences. The difference in length in Region 1, employed for the verification of the A mating type, resulted in the successful verification of mating types in the heterokaryotic and homokaryotic strains. This length difference enables the discrimination between homo- and heterokaryotic spores by PCR. The present study suggests that the A mating type locus in A. bisporus H97 has evolved through transposon insertion, allowing the discrimination of the mating type, and thus the nuclear type, between A. bisporus H97 and H39.

Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. METHODS: We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544-0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Phase I study of axitinib (AG-013736) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Axitinib (AG-013736), an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3, is under investigation for treatment of various solid tumors. The safety and pharmacokinetics of axitinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was evaluated in the phase I portion of this trial. The randomized phase II portion was reported separately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Pharmacokinetic profiles of the drugs were obtained on cycle (C) 1 day (D) 1 (gemcitabine alone 1,000 mg/m(2)), C1D14 (steady state, axitinib alone 5 mg twice daily [BID]), and C1D15 (gemcitabine plus steady-state axitinib). Adverse events were monitored weekly at the clinic. RESULTS: Eight patients participated in the phase IB portion of the trial. Patients received gemcitabine on D1, D8, and D15 and continuous axitinib in a 28 day-cycle beginning C1D3. There was no dose-limiting toxicity. Common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, diarrhea, dysphonia, and hypertension. Myelosuppression was similar to gemcitabine monotherapy. No apparent major pharmacokinetic interactions between gemcitabine and axitinib were observed. Of six patients evaluable for efficacy, three had confirmed partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib (5 mg BID) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) were well tolerated when administered together, without any pharmacokinetic interactions, and showed encouraging antitumor activity.

Axitinib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a double-blind randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3. A randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine with or without axitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer suggested increased overall survival in axitinib-treated patients. On the basis of these results, we aimed to assess the effect of treatment with gemcitabine plus axitinib on overall survival in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no uncontrolled hypertension or venous thrombosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. Patients, stratified by disease extent (metastatic vs locally advanced), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days plus either axitinib or placebo. Axitinib or placebo were administered orally with food at a starting dose of 5 mg twice a day, which could be dose-titrated up to 10 mg twice daily if well tolerated. A centralised randomisation procedure was used to assign patients to each treatment group, with randomised permuted blocks within strata. Patients, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All efficacy analyses were done in all patients assigned to treatment groups for whom data were available; safety and treatment administration and compliance assessments were based on treatment received. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471146. FINDINGS: Between July 27, 2007, and Oct 31, 2008, 632 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (316 axitinib, 316 placebo). At an interim analysis in January, 2009, the independent data monitoring committee concluded that the futility boundary had been crossed. Median overall survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·9-9·5) for gemcitabine plus axitinib (n=314, data missing for two patients) and 8·3 months (6·9-10·3) for gemcitabine plus placebo (n=316; hazard ratio 1·014, 95% CI 0·786-1·309; one-sided p=0·5436). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events for gemcitabine plus axitinib and gemcitabine plus placebo were hypertension (20 [7%] and 5 [2%] events, respectively), abdominal pain (20 [7%] and 17 [6%]), fatigue (27 [9%] and 21 [7%]), and anorexia (19 [6%] and 11 [4%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of axitinib to gemcitabine does not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. These results add to increasing evidence that targeting of VEGF signalling is an ineffective strategy in this disease. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Comparative structural analysis on the mitochondrial DNAs from various strains of Lentinula edodes.

The evolution of mitochondria through variations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is one of the intriguing questions in eukaryotic cells. In order to assess the causes of the variations in mitochondria, the mtDNAs of the 21 strains of Lentinula edodes were assembled for this study, and analyzed together with four published mtDNA sequences. The mtDNAs were within the sizes of 117 kb ~ 122 kb. The gene number was observed consistent except for two mtDNAs, which carry a duplicated trnG1-trnG2 unit or a putative gene deletion. The size variation was largely attributed to the number of introns, repeated sequences, transposable elements (TEs), and plasmid-related sequences. Intron loss and gain were found from cox1, rnl, and rns of three mtDNAs. Loss of two introns in cox1 of KY217797.1 reduced its size by 2.7 kb, making it the smallest cox1 gene (8.4 kb) among the cox1s of the 25 mtDNAs, whereas gain of a Group II intron (2.65 kb) and loss of a Group I intron (1.7 kb) in cox1 of MF774813.1 resulted in the longest cox1 (12 kb). In rnl of L. edodes, we discovered four intron insertion consensus sequences which were unique to basidiomycetes but not ascomycetes. Differential incorporation of introns was the primary cause of the rnl size polymorphism. Homing endonucleases (HEGs) were suggestively involved in the mobilization of the introns because all of the introns have HEG genes of the LAGRIDADG or GIY-YIG families with the conserved HEG cleavage sites. TEs contributed to 11.04% of the mtDNA size in average, of which 7.08% was LTR-retrotransposon and 3.96% was DNA transposon, whereas the repeated sequences covered 4.6% of the mtDNA. The repeat numbers were variable in a strain-dependent manner. Both the TEs and repeated sequences were mostly found in the intronic and intergenic regions. Lastly, two major deletions were found in the plasmid-related sequence regions (pol2-pol3 and pol1-atp8) in the five mtDNAs. Particularly, the 6.8 kb-long deletion at pol2-pol3 region made MF774813.1 the shortest mtDNA of all. Our results demonstrate that mtDNA is a dynamic molecule that persistently evolves over a short period of time by insertion/deletion and repetition of DNA segments at the strain level.

Mitochondrial Effects on the Physiological Characteristics of Lentinula edodes.

In the mating of filamentous basidiomycetes, dikaryotic mycelia are generated through the reciprocal movement of nuclei to a monokaryotic cytoplasm where a nucleus of compatible mating type resides, resulting in the establishment of two different dikaryotic strains having the same nuclei but different mitochondria. To better understand the role of mitochondria in mushrooms, we created four sets of dikaryotic strains of Lentinula edodes, including B2 × E13 (B2 side) and B2 × E13 (E13 side), B5 × E13 (B5 side) and B5 × E13 (E13 side), E8 × H3 (E8 side) and E8 × H3 (H3 side), and K3 × H3 (K3 side) and K3 × H3 (H3 side). The karyotypes and mitochondrial types of the dikaryotic strains were successfully identified by the A mating type markers and the mitochondrial variable length tandem repeat markers, respectively. Comparative analyses of the dikaryotic strains on the mycelial growth, substrate browning, fruiting characteristics, and mitochondrial gene expression revealed that certain mitochondria are more effective in the mycelial growth and the production of fruiting body, possibly through the activated energy metabolism. Our findings indicate that mitochondria affect the physiology of dikaryotic strains having the same nuclear information and therefore a selection strategy aimed at mitochondrial function is needed in the development of new mushroom strain.