Category: 3. Business

  • Coordination of virulence factors and lifestyle transition in Pseudomonas aeruginosa through single-cell analysis

    Coordination of virulence factors and lifestyle transition in Pseudomonas aeruginosa through single-cell analysis

  • Fernández-Barat, L. et al. Intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa with and without multidrug resistance. J. Infect. 74, 142–152 (2017).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, E. et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa adaptation and evolution in patients with cystic fibrosis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 19, 331–342 (2021).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S. J., Kuzel, T. M. & Shafikhani, S. H. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: infections, animal modeling, and therapeutics. Cells 12, 199 (2023).

  • Lorusso, A. B., Carrara, J. A., Barroso, C. D. N., Tuon, F. F. & Faoro, H. Role of efflux pumps on antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23, 15779 (2022).

  • Organization, W. H. WHO Bacterial Priority Pathogens List, 2024: Bacterial Pathogens of Public Health Importance, to Guide Research, Development and Strategies to Prevent and Control Antimicrobial Resistance. (World Health Organization, 2024).

  • Tacconelli, E. et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 18, 318–327 (2018).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. J., Tsuei, K.-S. C. & Shen, E. P. The role of type III secretion system in the pathogenesis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa microbial keratitis. Tzu Chi Med. J. 34, 8–14 (2022).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Muggeo, A., Coraux, C. & Guillard, T. Current concepts on Pseudomonas aeruginosa interaction with human airway epithelium. PLoS Pathog. 19, e1011221 (2023).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Notti, R. Q. & Stebbins, C. E. The structure and function of type III secretion systems. Microbiol. Spectr. 4, 1–30 (2016).

  • Yahr, T. L. & Wolfgang, M. C. Transcriptional regulation of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa type III secretion system. Mol. Microbiol. 62, 631–640 (2006).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbanowski, M. L., Lykken, G. L. & Yahr, T. L. A secreted regulatory protein couples transcription to the secretory activity of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa type III secretion system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9930–9935 (2005).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Vakulskas, C. A., Brady, K. M. & Yahr, T. L. Mechanism of Transcriptional Activation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa ExsA. J. Bacteriol. 191, 6654–6664 (2009).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaw, M. L., Lykken, G. L., Singh, P. K. & Yahr, T. L. ExsD is a negative regulator of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa type III secretion regulon. Mol. Microbiol. 46, 1123–1133 (2002).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S. et al. Bacterial type III secretion systems: a complex device for the delivery of bacterial effector proteins into eukaryotic host cells. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 365, fny201 (2018).

  • Forsberg, Å, Viitanen, A.-M., Skurnik, M. & Wolf-Watz, H. The surface-located YopN protein is involved in calcium signal transduction in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Mol. Microbiol. 5, 977–986 (1991).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, S. S. & Plano, G. V. The SycN/YscB chaperone-binding domain of YopN is required for the calcium-dependent regulation of Yop secretion by Yersinia pestis. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 3, 1 (2013).

  • Ngo, T.-D. et al. The PopN gate-keeper complex acts on the ATPase PscN to regulate the T3SS secretion switch from early to middle substrates in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Mol. Biol. 432, 166690 (2020).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Horna, G. & Ruiz, J. Type 3 secretion system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol. Res. 246, 126719 (2021).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sana, T. G., Berni, B. & Bleves, S. The T6SSs of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PAO1 and their effectors: beyond bacterial-cell targeting. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 6, 61 (2016).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Habich, A. et al. Distribution of the four type VI secretion systems in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and classification of their core and accessory effectors. Nat. Commun. 16, 888 (2025).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, R. D. et al. A type VI secretion system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa targets a toxin to bacteria. Cell Host Microbe 7, 25–37 (2010).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Colautti, J., Kelly, S. D. & Whitney, J. C. Specialized killing across the domains of life by the type VI secretion systems of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biochem. J. 482, 1–15 (2025).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Basler, M., Ho, B. T. & Mekalanos, J. J. Tit-for-tat: type VI secretion system counterattack during bacterial cell-cell interactions. Cell 152, 884–894 (2013).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., Zou, Y., She, P. & Wu, Y. Composition, function, and regulation of T6SS in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol Res. 172, 19–25 (2015).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolle, A.-S., Meader, B. T., Toska, J. & Mekalanos, J. J. Endogenous membrane stress induces T6SS activity in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118, e2018365118 (2021).

  • Nolan, L. M. et al. Identification of Tse8 as a Type VI secretion system toxin from Pseudomonas aeruginosa that targets the bacterial transamidosome to inhibit protein synthesis in prey cells. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 1199–1210 (2021).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Magaña, A. et al. The P. aeruginosa effector Tse5 forms membrane pores disrupting the membrane potential of intoxicated bacteria. Commun. Biol. 5, 1189 (2022).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Le, N.-H., Pinedo, V., Lopez, J., Cava, F. & Feldman, M. F. Killing of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria by a bifunctional cell wall-targeting T6SS effector. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2106555118 (2021).

  • Pissaridou, P. et al. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa T6SS-VgrG1b spike is topped by a PAAR protein eliciting DNA damage to bacterial competitors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 12519–12524 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A. B. et al. Type VI secretion delivers bacteriolytic effectors to target cells. Nature 475, 343–347 (2011).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, P. et al. Regulation of cellulose synthesis in Acetobacter xylinum by cyclic diguanylic acid. Nature 325, 279–281 (1987).

  • Hickman, J. W., Tifrea, D. F. & Harwood, C. S. A chemosensory system that regulates biofilm formation through modulation of cyclic diguanylate levels. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 14422–14427 (2005).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. P. et al. HD-GYP domain proteins regulate biofilm formation and virulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Environ. Microbiol. 11, 1126–1136 (2009).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttenplan, S. B. & Kearns, D. B. Regulation of flagellar motility during biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 849–871 (2013).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., Hua, C. & Deng, X. c-di-GMP signaling in Pseudomonas syringae complex. Microbiol. Res. 275, 127445 (2023).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hengge, R. Principles of c-di-GMP signalling in bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 7, 263–273 (2009).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenal, U. & Malone, J. Mechanisms of cyclic-di-GMP signaling in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Genet. 40, 385–407 (2006).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuyama, B. Y. et al. Mechanistic insights into c-di-GMP-dependent control of the biofilm regulator FleQ from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E209–E218 (2016).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, J. W. & Harwood, C. S. Identification of FleQ from Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a c-di-GMP-responsive transcription factor. Mol. Microbiol. 69, 376–389 (2008).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J. R., Kuwada, N. J., Huangyutitham, V., Wiggins, P. A. & Harwood, C. S. Surface sensing and lateral subcellular localization of WspA, the receptor in a chemosensory-like system leading to c-di-GMP production. Mol. Microbiol. 86, 720–729 (2012).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Baraquet, C., Murakami, K., Parsek, M. R. & Harwood, C. S. The FleQ protein from Pseudomonas aeruginosa functions as both a repressor and an activator to control gene expression from the pel operon promoter in response to c-di-GMP. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 7207–7218 (2012).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. T. et al. A cyclic-di-GMP receptor required for bacterial exopolysaccharide production. Mol. Microbiol. 65, 1474–1484 (2007).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gheorghita, A. A., Wozniak, D. J., Parsek, M. R. & Howell, P. L. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm exopolysaccharides: assembly, function, and degradation. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 47, fuad060 (2023).

  • Gupta, K., Liao, J., Petrova, O. E., Cherny, K. E. & Sauer, K. Elevated levels of the second messenger c-di-GMP contribute to antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol. Microbiol. 92, 488–506 (2014).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, G.-L., Chandra, H. & Liang, Z.-X. Taming the flagellar motor of pseudomonads with a nucleotide messenger. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 2496–2513 (2020).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, A. B., Petrova, O. E. & Sauer, K. The Phosphodiesterase DipA (PA5017) Is Essential for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Dispersion. J. Bacteriol. 194, 2904–2915 (2012).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Furukawa, S., Kuchma, S. L. & O’Toole, G. A. Keeping their options open: acute versus persistent infections. J. Bacteriol. 188, 1211–1217 (2006).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciofu, O., Mandsberg, L. F., Wang, H. & Høiby, N. Phenotypes selected during chronic lung infection in cystic fibrosis patients: implications for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm infections. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 65, 215–225 (2012).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. M., Pursell, Z. F. & Morici, L. A. The role of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa hypermutator phenotype on the shift from acute to chronic virulence during respiratory infection. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 12, 943346 (2022).

  • Mikkelsen, H., Sivaneson, M. & Filloux, A. Key two-component regulatory systems that control biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Environ. Microbiol. 13, 1666–1681 (2011).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Allsopp, L. P. et al. RsmA and AmrZ orchestrate the assembly of all three type VI secretion systems in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7707–7712 (2017).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, H., O’Callaghan, J., O’Grady, E. P., Adams, C. & O’Gara, F. The posttranscriptional regulator RsmA plays a role in the interaction between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and human airway epithelial cells by positively regulating the type III secretion system. Infect. Immun. 74, 3012–3015 (2006).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, V. I., Stevenson, E. C. & Porter, S. L. Two-component systems required for virulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 364, fnx104 (2017).

  • Broder, U. N., Jaeger, T. & Jenal, U. LadS is a calcium-responsive kinase that induces acute-to-chronic virulence switch in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 16184 (2016).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbel-Goren, R., Tal, A. & Stavans, J. Phenotypic noise: effects of post-transcriptional regulatory processes affecting mRNA. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA 5, 197–207 (2014).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Vakulskas, C. A., Potts, A. H., Babitzke, P., Ahmer, B. M. M. & Romeo, T. Regulation of bacterial virulence by Csr (Rsm) systems. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 79, 193–224 (2015).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscoso, J. A., Mikkelsen, H., Heeb, S., Williams, P. & Filloux, A. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa sensor RetS switches type III and type VI secretion via c-di-GMP signalling. Environ. Microbiol. 13, 3128–3138 (2011).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, T. et al. The two-component system FleS/FleR represses H1-T6SS via cyclic di-GMP signaling in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 88, e0165521 (2022).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, H. et al. Wsp system oppositely modulates antibacterial activity and biofilm formation via FleQ-FleN complex in Pseudomonas putida. Environ. Microbiol. 24, 1543–1559 (2022).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyng, M. & Kovács, Á. T. Microbial ecology: metabolic heterogeneity and the division of labor in multicellular structures. Curr. Biol. 32, R771–R774 (2022).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, A. E. et al. Vfr directly activates exsA transcription to regulate expression of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa type III secretion system. J. Bacteriol. 198, 1442–1450 (2016).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Laventie, B.-J. et al. A surface-induced asymmetric program promotes tissue colonization by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Cell Host Microbe 25, 140–152.e6 (2019).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Laventie, B.-J. & Jenal, U. Surface sensing and adaptation in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol 74, 735–760 (2020).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigel, W. A. & Dersch, P. Phenotypic heterogeneity: a bacterial virulence strategy. Microbes Infect. 20, 570–577 (2018).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Christen, M. et al. Asymmetrical distribution of the second messenger c-di-GMP upon bacterial cell division. Science 328, 1295–1297 (2010).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, M. & Filloux, A. Biofilms and cyclic di-GMP (c-di-GMP) signaling: lessons from Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Other Bacteria. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 12547–12555 (2016).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. et al. A toolbox of FRET-based c-di-GMP biosensors and its FRET-To-Sort application for genome-wide mapping of the second messenger regulatory network. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.21.609041 (2024).

  • Wang, T. et al. Pleiotropic effects of c-di-GMP content in Pseudomonas syringae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85, e00152-19 (2019).

  • Christen, M. et al. Identification of small-molecule modulators of diguanylate cyclase by FRET-based high-throughput screening. ChemBioChem 20, 394–407 (2019).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, M. & Park, C. Two novel flagellar components and H-NS are involved in the motor function of Escherichia coli. J. Mol. Biol. 303, 371–382 (2000).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Diepold, A., Kudryashev, M., Delalez, N. J., Berry, R. M. & Armitage, J. P. Composition, formation, and regulation of the cytosolic C-ring, a dynamic component of the type III secretion injectisome. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002039 (2015).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmi, S. et al. Cytosolic sorting platform complexes shuttle type III secretion system effectors to the injectisome in Yersinia enterocolitica. Nat. Microbiol. 9, 185–199 (2024).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, S. L. et al. Dispersed cells represent a distinct stage in the transition from bacterial biofilm to planktonic lifestyles. Nat. Commun. 5, 4462 (2014).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebl, D., Robert-Genthon, M., Job, V., Cogoni, V. & Attrée, I. Baseplate component TssK and spatio-temporal assembly of T6SS in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1615 (2019).

  • Records, A. R. & Gross, D. C. Sensor kinases RetS and LadS regulate Pseudomonas syringae type VI secretion and virulence factors. J. Bacteriol. 192, 3584–3596 (2010).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Basler, M. & Mekalanos, J. J. Type 6 secretion dynamics within and between bacterial cells. Science 337, 815–815 (2012).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, A. E. et al. Flagellar stators stimulate c-di-GMP production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 201, e00741–18 (2019).

  • Kulasekara, B. R. et al. c-di-GMP heterogeneity is generated by the chemotaxis machinery to regulate flagellar motility. Elife 2, e01402 (2013).

  • Kilmury, S. L. N. & Burrows, L. L. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa PilSR two-component system regulates both twitching and swimming motilities. mBio 9, e01310–18 (2018).

  • Soscia, C., Hachani, A., Bernadac, A., Filloux, A. & Bleves, S. Cross talk between type III secretion and flagellar assembly systems in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 189, 3124–3132 (2007).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Oladosu, V. I., Park, S. & Sauer, K. Flip the switch: the role of FleQ in modulating the transition between the free-living and sessile mode of growth in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 206, e0036523 (2024).

  • Zhang, X. et al. NrtR mediated regulation of H1-T6SS in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol. Spectr. 10, e01858-21 (2022).

  • Dadashi, M., Chen, L., Nasimian, A., Ghavami, S. & Duan, K. Putative RNA ligase RtcB affects the switch between T6SS and T3SS in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 12561 (2021).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmi, S. et al. Dynamic relocalization of cytosolic type III secretion system components prevents premature protein secretion at low external pH. Nat. Commun. 12, 1625 (2021).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Almblad, H. et al. Erratum for Almblad et al., the cyclic AMP-Vfr signaling pathway in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is inhibited by cyclic Di-GMP. J. Bacteriol. 197, 2731–2731 (2015).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, N., Ferrell, E. P., Kanack, K. J., West, S. E. H. & Ramphal, R. fleQ, the gene encoding the major flagellar regulator of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Is σ 70 dependent and is downregulated by Vfr, a homolog of Escherichia coli Cyclic AMP receptor protein. J. Bacteriol. 184, 5240–5250 (2002).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Chen, L., Zhang, P., Bhagirath, A. Y. & Duan, K. ClpV3 of the H3-Type VI secretion system (H3-T6SS) affects multiple virulence factors in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1096 (2020).

  • Rietsch, A. & Mekalanos, J. J. Metabolic regulation of type III secretion gene expression in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol. Microbiol. 59, 807–820 (2006).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. et al. A hierarchical cascade of second messengers regulates Pseudomonas aeruginosa surface behaviors. mBio 6, e02456–14 (2015).

  • Speare, L., Jackson, A. & Septer, A. N. Calcium promotes T6SS-mediated killing and aggregation between competing symbionts. Microbiol. Spectr. 10, e0139722 (2022).

  • Lu, D. et al. Structural insights into the T 6 SS effector protein Tse 3 and the Tse 3– Tsi 3 complex from Pseudomonas aeruginosa reveal a calcium-dependent membrane-binding mechanism. Mol. Microbiol. 92, 1092–1112 (2014).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S. et al. Autoinducer-2 and bile salts induce c-di-GMP synthesis to repress the T3SS via a T3SS chaperone. Nat. Commun. 13, 6684 (2022).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Belhart, K., Sisti, F., Gestal, M. C. & Fernández, J. Bordetella bronchiseptica diguanylate cyclase BdcB inhibits the type three secretion system and impacts the immune response. Sci. Rep. 13, 7157 (2023).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y. & Webb, J. S. Optimization of nitric oxide donors for investigating biofilm dispersal response in Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 104, 8859–8869 (2020).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Muhl, D. & Filloux, A. Site-directed mutagenesis and gene deletion using reverse genetics. Methods Mol. Biol. 1149, 521–539 (2014).

  • Schlechter, R. O. et al. Chromatic bacteria—a broad host-range plasmid and chromosomal insertion toolbox for fluorescent protein expression in bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 9, 3052 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chuanchuen, R., Narasaki, C. T. & Schweizer, H. P. Benchtop and microcentrifuge preparation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa competent cells. Biotechniques 33, 760–763 (2002).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampaki, D., Diepold, A. & Glatter, T. In-depth quantitative proteomics analysis of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa secretome. Methods Mol. Biol. 2721, 197–211 (2024).

  • Demichev, V., Messner, C. B., Vernardis, S. I., Lilley, K. S. & Ralser, M. DIA-NN: neural networks and interference correction enable deep proteome coverage in high throughput. Nat. Methods 17, 41–44 (2020).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahrné, E., Molzahn, L., Glatter, T. & Schmidt, A. Critical assessment of proteome-wide label-free absolute abundance estimation strategies. Proteomics 13, 2567–2578 (2013).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatter, T. et al. Large-scale quantitative assessment of different in-solution protein digestion protocols reveals superior cleavage efficiency of tandem Lys-C/trypsin proteolysis over trypsin digestion. J. Proteome Res. 11, 5145–5156 (2012).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Skruzny, M., Pohl, E., Gnoth, S., Malengo, G. & Sourjik, V. The protein architecture of the endocytic coat analyzed by FRET microscopy. Mol. Syst. Biol. 16, e9009 (2020).

  • Yadavalli, S. S. et al. Functional determinants of a small protein controlling a broadly conserved bacterial sensor kinase. J. Bacteriol. 202, e00305–20 (2020).

  • Roszik, J., Szöllősi, J. & Vereb, G. AccPbFRET: an ImageJ plugin for semi-automatic, fully corrected analysis of acceptor photobleaching FRET images. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 346 (2008).

  • Coffey, B. M. & Anderson, G. G. Biofilm formation in the 96-well microtiter plate. Methods Mol. Biol. 1149, 631–641 (2014).

  • Ha, D.-G., Kuchma, S. L. & O’Toole, G. A. Plate-based assay for swimming motility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Methods Mol. Biol. 1149, 59–65 (2014).

  • Colley, B. et al. SiaA/D interconnects c-di-GMP and RsmA signaling to coordinate cellular aggregation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in response to environmental conditions. Front. Microbiol. 7, 179 (2016).

  • Brencic, A. & Lory, S. Determination of the regulon and identification of novel mRNA targets of Pseudomonas aeruginosa RsmA. Mol. Microbiol. 72, 612–632 (2009).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrowes, E., Baysse, C., Adams, C. & O’Gara, F. Influence of the regulatory protein RsmA on cellular functions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1, as revealed by transcriptome analysis. Microbiology 152, 405–418 (2006).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

Continue Reading

  • Oil markets seen bearish after Trump-Putin Alaska meeting By Reuters – Investing.com

    1. Oil markets seen bearish after Trump-Putin Alaska meeting By Reuters  Investing.com
    2. Oil prices post weekly gains on Fed rate cut hopes, Trump-Putin summit focus  Anadolu Ajansı
    3. Crude differentials stable ahead of Alaska summit  TradingView
    4. WTI Oil Falls as U.S. and Russian Presidents Ready to Meet and China’s Economy Slowed Last Month  MarketScreener
    5. Oil Prices Fall as Markets Brace for Trump-Putin Summit  energyintel.com

    Continue Reading

  • Oil markets seen bearish after Trump-Putin Alaska meeting – Reuters

    1. Oil markets seen bearish after Trump-Putin Alaska meeting  Reuters
    2. Oil prices post weekly gains on Fed rate cut hopes, Trump-Putin summit focus  Anadolu Ajansı
    3. What the Anchorage talks achieved, according to expert Akimbekov  qazinform.com
    4. Crude differentials stable ahead of Alaska summit  TradingView
    5. WTI Oil Falls as U.S. and Russian Presidents Ready to Meet and China’s Economy Slowed Last Month  MarketScreener

    Continue Reading

  • Here’s Who Would Buy Chrome If Google Is Forced to Sell

    Here’s Who Would Buy Chrome If Google Is Forced to Sell

    Chrome is the world’s most popular web browser. But how much longer it belongs to Google is an open question.

    A court last year ruled that Google had violated antitrust laws by maintaining a monopoly on internet search. A second ruling in April found Google also monopolized open-web digital ad markets.

    The Justice Department asked a judge to force Google to divest its premier web browser to remedy the case. A court is expected to rule on that by the end of this month.

    Chrome, a free web browser developed by Google, is an important distribution tool for Google Search and its other services. It also provides insights into users’ search habits and is the most popular web browser on the market.

    Being forced to sell Chrome would be an undeniable blow to Google and its parent company, Alphabet Inc. Analysts at Barclays said such an action could be a black swan scenario for Google stock, sparking an estimated 15% to 25% decline.

    Google denies it’s a monopoly. It said in a blog post in May that offloading the web browser to another party could render it “obsolete” and “expose billions of people to cyber-attacks.”

    Although the judge has not yet decided Chrome’s ultimate fate, competitors are already lining up to gladly take it off Google’s hands.

    Search.com

    Search.com, an AI search chat platform, confirmed to Business Insider that it made a $35 billion bid for Chrome this week. JP Morgan and several private equity firms backed the bid.

    Search.com is a division of the digital marketing company Public Good, which Ad.com acquired in July. Public Good President Melissa Anderson and Ad.com CEO Danny Bibi told Business Insider they reached out to Google on Wednesday.

    “Given the number of worldwide users Chrome has, it’s a really just phenomenal way to scale user adoption,” Anderson said.

    The pair said they’re committed to using AI ethically, which means offering its search for free in an effort to make knowledge accessible for all.

    They also said Ad.com, founded in 1998, already has a network of clients, so finding potential advertisers wouldn’t be a heavy lift.

    Perplexity

    Perplexity, an AI search startup, made a $34.5 billion bid for the web browser this week. The company launched an AI-native browser, Comet, in July.

    Related stories

    Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know

    Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know

    Although the bid is higher than Perplexity’s entire valuation, The Wall Street Journal reported that several investors have agreed to back the potential deal.

    Perplexity said it would continue supporting Chromium, Google’s open-source web browser project that’s the foundation of Chrome, as part of the deal, according to the outlet.

    The outlet reported that Perplexity would continue to keep Google as the default search engine, but users could change that through settings.

    OpenAI

    Although OpenAI’s ChatGPT turned it into the leading AI startup in Silicon Valley, the company is a tiny fraction of the size of a Big Tech mammoth like Google.

    Purchasing Chrome, however, would help even the playing field.

    During Google’s antitrust hearing in April, OpenAI’s head of ChatGPT testified that the company would be interested in acquiring Chrome if Google were forced to divest.

    “Yes, we would, as would many other parties,” Nick Turley told the court, according to Bloomberg.

    OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also recently said he’d be interested in snapping up Chrome.

    “If Chrome is really going to sell, we should take a look at it,” Altman told a group of journalists on Thursday, according to The Verge.

    Yahoo

    Yahoo, a direct competitor of Google, would also be interested in bidding on Chrome, Bloomberg reported.

    Brian Provost, the general manager for Yahoo Search, said Chrome is “arguably the most important strategic player on the web” during a hearing for Google’s antitrust case in April.

    “We would be able to pursue it with Apollo,” Provost said, referring to Yahoo’s owner, Apollo Global Management Inc.


    Continue Reading

  • OpenAI CEO Sam Altman revealed the heartbreaking truth behind its users’ attachment to previous ChatGPT models — “This was great for my mental health”

    OpenAI CEO Sam Altman revealed the heartbreaking truth behind its users’ attachment to previous ChatGPT models — “This was great for my mental health”

    OpenAI has faced a lot of backlash from users after shipping its much-anticipated GPT-5 AI model (touted as the smartest AI model ever) with next-gen capabilities across healthcare sectors, coding, and writing.

    Multiple users have blatantly expressed their preference for previous models despite the fact that OpenAI had abruptly decided to deprecate them, including GPT-4o. However, the company recently decided to change this by making these models available again for ChatGPT users.

    Continue Reading

  • Chemoimmunotherapy Less Safe, Efficacious in Younger ES-SCLC Population

    Chemoimmunotherapy Less Safe, Efficacious in Younger ES-SCLC Population

    Results from a retrospective study showed that chemoimmunotherapy did not prolong survival vs chemotherapy in a younger ES-SCLC population.

    Chemoimmunotherapy may not confer a survival benefit and result in more immune-related adverse events (AEs) and hematologic toxicity compared with chemotherapy in younger patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), according to results from a multicenter, retrospective study shared in BMC Cancer.

    Overall, with a median follow-up of 13.7 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.67 months in the younger group and 5.40 months in the control group (P <.001); the median overall survival (OS) was 13.70 months vs 14.37 months, respectively (P = .028).

    In the group of patients who received chemoimmunotherapy, the median PFS was 4.50 months in the younger group vs 5.57 months in the control group (P = .002); the median OS was 13.20 months vs 15.33 months (P = .012). The overall response rate (ORR) was 68.97% in the younger group vs 78.70% in the control group (P = .271), showing a nonsignificant difference. The disease control rate (DCR) was 96.55% in the young group, with 0 complete responses (CRs), 20 partial responses (PRs), 8 instances of stable disease, and 1 instance of progressive disease.

    In the patients who received chemotherapy, the median PFS was 4.75 months vs 5.37 months in the younger group and control group, respectively, showing no significant difference (P = .082); the median OS was 13.70 months vs 13.73 months, also showing no significant difference (P = .407). The ORR was 60.0% in the younger group vs 80.0% in the control group (P = .016). The DCR was 96.67% in the younger group, with 0 CRs, 18 PRs, 11 instances of stable disease, and 1 instance of progressive disease.

    No statistically significant difference was observed regarding ORR and DCR between the young chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses revealed no significant differences in PFS or OS between the young chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy groups either: 4.50 months vs 4.75 months for PFS (P = .501), and 13.20 months vs 13.70 months for OS (P = .508).

    In a univariate analysis considering all patients who received chemoimmunotherapy, the factors negatively associated with PFS were younger age (HR, 0.511; 95% CI, 0.333-0.784; P = .002) and liver metastases (HR, 1.629; 95% CI, 1.132-2.343; P = .009); for OS, age stratification (HR, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.349-0.885; P = .013), liver metastases (HR, 1.932; 95% CI, 1.281-2.915; P = .002), and radiotherapy (HR, 0.440; 95% CI, 0.291-0.665; P <.001) were significantly associated factors.

    Separate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, in the young group, demonstrated that radiotherapy was the only factor that significantly correlated with PFS and OS; univariate analyses revealed that radiotherapy improved PFS (HR, 0.496; 95% CI, 0.286–0.859; P = .012) and OS (HR, 0.207; 95% CI, 0.104–0.411; P <.001).

    “Young patients with ES-SCLC exhibited poorer survival outcomes, with shorter PFS and OS compared to the control group,” wrote lead study author Lijuan Zhao, of the Senior Department of Oncology at The Fifth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital in Beijing, China, and the Graduate School of Chinese PLA General Hospital, with coauthors in the publication. “Chemoimmunotherapy may not demonstrate a survival advantage in young patients, as evidenced by similar PFS and OS outcomes compared to chemotherapy.”

    The retrospective analysis included 347 patients with ES-SCLC, of whom 210 received chemotherapy and 137 received chemoimmunotherapy. Patients were further broken into a young group (n = 59), consisting of patients 45 years or younger, and a control group (n = 288), consisting of patients older than 45 and 75 years or younger. Chemotherapy consisted of etoposide and platinum-based drugs; when indicated, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were added to therapy.

    Eligible patients were 18 years to 75 years old with pathologically or cytologically confirmed ES-SCLC without prior systemic treatment, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and at least 1 measurable lesion per RECIST v1.1 guidelines. Among the reasons for exclusion were limited-stage SCLC, previous platinum-free chemotherapy, and combined disease with non–SCLC.

    Trial end points were PFS, OS, safety, and responses among the different age groups.

    In the younger group, the median patient age was 40 years (IQR, 37.0-42.0) in the chemoimmunotherapy group and 39.5 years (IQR, 36.3-42.0) in the chemotherapy group; in the control group, it was 62 years (IQR, 57.0-68.0) and 62 years (IQR, 56.0-67.3). The majority of patients in all groups were male, had an ECOG performance status of 0, and had prior smoking history.

    Immunotherapy was anti–PD-1 drugs in 51.7% of the younger group and 33.3% of the older group, and anti–PD-L1 drugs in 48.3% and 66.7%. The most common chemotherapy regimen was etoposide plus carboplatin, except for in the younger chemotherapy group, where it was etoposide plus cisplatin.

    Regarding safety, 86.44% of the younger group and 82.97% of the control group experienced a treatment-related AE (TRAE). The most common AEs were hematologic toxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity; the younger group had a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia (25.42% vs 14.24%; P = .033). Immune-related AEs occurred in 30.51% of the younger group and 11.46% of the control group (P <.001); they included pneumonitis (11.86% vs 2.43%; P = .003) and skin rash (11.86% vs 1.40%; P <.001).

    “These findings suggest that chemoimmunotherapy may not be as effective in young patients with ES-SCLC and underline the need for tailored treatment strategies in this population,” the study authors concluded.

    Reference

    Zhao L, Xiong Q, Long Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of first-line chemoimmunotherapy in young patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. BMC Cancer. 2025;25(1):1136. doi:10.1186/s12885-025-14524-y

    Continue Reading

  • Dallas accelerates public services with AI-powered procurement

    Dallas accelerates public services with AI-powered procurement

    16 August 2025

    by Jonathan Andrews

    Dallas has become the first major city in Texas to introduce artificial intelligence into its procurement operations, partnering with Hazel, an AI-powered platform, to accelerate public service delivery and expand opportunities for local businesses.

    The system will automate time-consuming steps in the procurement process, cutting the period from project scoping to issuing a request for proposals from months to days. City officials say this will reduce costs, improve transparency, and bring a wider range of vendors into the process.

    Juanita Ortiz, Director of Procurement Services, said the partnership was designed to reshape how contracts are managed.

    “We are reimagining procurement services to better meet our mission of providing excellent customer service through strategic, sustainable practices,” she said. “Our partnership with this technology allows us to increase competition, enhance transparency, and expand access for small and local businesses delivering smarter, faster, and more inclusive outcomes for the City of Dallas.”

    Faster procurement timelines are expected to benefit projects such as housing programmes, airport upgrades, and other public works. The platform is also intended to open up opportunities for small and minority-owned firms that often struggle to access city contracts.

    The technology works alongside procurement teams, simplifying complex workflows, improving project visibility, and ensuring greater consistency across departments.

    City leaders describe the collaboration as part of a broader programme of investment in digital tools that strengthen core government functions. With one of the fastest-growing populations in the US, Dallas faces pressure to deliver services and infrastructure at pace. Officials believe scalable AI platforms can help governments act more quickly while maintaining oversight and accountability.

    “Dallas is proving that good government and great technology go hand in hand,” said August Chen, Co-Founder and CEO of Hazel AI. “This partnership shows what’s possible when a city brings bold leadership to the table.”

    Image: Mihai Andritoiu | Dreamstime.com

    Continue Reading

  • What to know as Air Canada flights grounded and attendants strike

    What to know as Air Canada flights grounded and attendants strike

    Reuters Man in blue short-sleeve shirt and camo shorts pushes trolley stacked with suitcases next to a woman with long hair, jeans, red tank top and backpack who pulls a gray suitcaseReuters

    As Air Canada’s flight attendants began their strike Saturday, the airline said it has “suspended all operations” while the labour dispute unfolds.

    The attendants gave a 72-hour strike notice earlier this week, after contract talks reached an impasse.

    Their union said the company was not addressing key issues such as wages and unpaid work, and the strike took effect shortly after midnight on Saturday.

    Soon afterwards, the carrier began delaying and cancelling some flights. On Friday, it expected to scrap 500 flights, affecting 100,000 passengers.

    With the strike in effect, the airline announced it would halt flights on its Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge service.

    Now travellers are scrambling as Canada’s largest airline shuts down during the height of summer season, and the government is pleading with both sides to come to an agreement. Here’s what to know.

    Why is Air Canada cancelling flights?

    The airline, which operates in 64 countries and has a fleet of 259 aircraft, warned that a “complete cessation of flying” would begin on Saturday, if the labour issues aren’t resolved. Air Canada Express flights, which carry about 20% of Air Canada’s daily customers, will not be affected.

    Still, a shutdown could affect 130,000 daily customers, including 25,000 Canadians.

    Upon receiving the strike notice, Air Canada issued its own 72-hour lock-out notice and began winding down operations, delaying and cancelling flights over those three days.

    Chief Operations Officer Mark Nasr explained the airline’s system was complex and not something “we can start or stop at the push of a button”.

    Watch: Moment Air Canada ends news conference after union activists disrupt event

    What led to the strike?

    The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), representing 10,000 Air Canada attendants, has asserted that it bargained in good faith with the airline for more than eight months.

    The airline said it recently offered flight attendants a 38% increase in total compensation over four years, with a 25% raise in the first year.

    But the union said the offer was “below inflation, below market value, below minimum wage” and would leave flight attendants unpaid for some hours of work, including waiting at airports ahead of flights or guiding the boarding process.

    They said that wages had not kept up with inflation, so that Air Canada’s suggested pay increase was “in effect, a pay cut”.

    Almost all of the attendants – 99.7% – voted to strike earlier this month. The company, meanwhile, has asked the government to intervene.

    Government representatives had facilitated some of the negotiations already, but the carrier went further and asked Canada’s jobs minister, Patty Hajdu, to refer the matter for binding arbitration.

    How has the government responded?

    Earlier this week, Air Canada proposed having a third party step in to develop an agreement through what is called “binding arbitration”, but the union rejected that.

    It then asked the government to force the parties into binding arbitration, pointing to recent government interventions in rail, port and other negotiations.

    In binding arbitration, an independent third party sets the terms of a contract in an agreement that is legally enforceable.

    The union said in a statement on Friday that it had requested that Hajdu not intervene and, instead, allow “the parties to reach a resolution through free and fair negotiations, without undue interference”.

    For the flight attendants, the only answer is for both sides to come back to the table.

    Should Hajdu side with the company, she would ask Canada’s Industrial Relations Board to impose binding arbitration in order to protect the economy, according to Reuters, which reported that the board typically agrees to such requests, but after it has studied them for a few days.

    There is pressure from other parts of Canada, as well. The Board of Trade for the Toronto region has called for a government intervention , while the province of Newfoundland and Labrador released a statement describing the impact of a strike as “catastrophic” for the tourism industry during the summer season.

    How long will the strike last?

    That’s unclear.

    When Air Canada pilots went on strike in September 1998 for 13 days, all of the carrier’s more than 600 daily flights were grounded, stranding passengers and costing the airline C$133m ($96m; £71m) before a negotiated deal was reached.

    In recent years, the federal government has stepped in during labour disputes by Air Canada workers by blocking strikes and imposing agreements.

    The union said imposing arbitration would stop the first strike by the carrier’s flight attendants since 1985.

    What to do if your flight is cancelled?

    Air Canada has said it will notify passengers if there is a change to the flight’s scheduled departure time.

    As of Saturday, Air Canada was “strongly advising” passengers not to go to the airport unless they had tickets on other airlines.

    Customers whose flights are cancelled will be notified and receive a full refund, the airline said. The company has also made arrangements with other Canadian and foreign carriers to provide customers alternative travel options.

    If it’s a round trip, return flights are not automatically cancelled in case the passengers reaches the destination.

    Those bookings can be cancelled with no fees.

    Continue Reading

  • Air Canada flight attendants walk off job, picket lines set up at airports – Reuters

    1. Air Canada flight attendants walk off job, picket lines set up at airports  Reuters
    2. Air Canada strike: Hundreds of flights grounded as industrial action begins  BBC
    3. Air Canada travelers brace for impact: What to know if your flight is canceled  AP News
    4. Air Canada no longer wants to negotiate  Canadian Union of Public Employees
    5. Air Canada’s Flight Attendants Reject Call for Arbitration  The New York Times

    Continue Reading

  • Creating Space for Ide-Cel and Finding Sequencing Options in Multiple Myeloma

    Creating Space for Ide-Cel and Finding Sequencing Options in Multiple Myeloma

    On a spring evening in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, experts in multiple myeloma gathered to debate treatment options in the relapsed/refractory setting. The teams competed in 3 key areas: real-world updates, B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy sequencing, and patient cases.

    What is Face-Off? An educational program designed as a competition for teams to present to and against each other.

    How does it work? There are 3 rounds: data presentations, topics, and patient cases. During each round, both teams can present and defend their ideas and challenge the other team. The judge determines who is worthy of the top prize.

    Team Eagles on Real-World Ide-Cel Results

    Presented by Adam Binder, MD

    This real-world data set from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) assessed patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.1 The data set compared the CIBMTR registry (n = 603) with results from the phase 2 KarMMa trial (NCT03361748; n = 128).2

    Between the registry and the trial, the patient characteristics included a median age of 65 years vs 61 years, with 26% vs not available for 70 years or older; 36% vs 26% had penta-refractory disease, and 5% vs 0% had received prior BCMA CAR T-cell therapy. Additionally, 17% vs 39% of patients in the CIBMTR registry and the KarMMa trial had extramedullary disease, 23% vs 35% had high-risk cytogenetics, 16% vs 16% had International Staging System stage III, and the median lines of prior therapy were 7 and 6, respectively.

    Efficacy outcomes included a 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 62% in the CIBMTR registry and a 6-month overall survival (OS) rate of 82%. In the KarMMa trial, the median PFS was 8.6 months, and the median OS was 24.8 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 71% vs 73%, the very good partial response rate was 53% vs 52%, and the complete response rate or better was 27% vs 33%, respectively.

    Notably, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 81% of patients in the CIBMTR registry and 84% in the KarMMa trial, with 3% and 5% having grade 3 or higher. Additionally, neurotoxicity was noted in 27% vs 18%, with 4% vs 3% having grade 3 or higher.

    A study by Ferreri et al assessed prior BCMA-targeted therapy and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) use.3 For those with prior BCMA therapy, the ORR was 74%, and for those without it, the rate was 88%. Based on the type of prior BCMA therapy, the ORR for those given antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) was 68%, 86% for those who received bispecifics, and 100% for those who were given CAR T-cell therapy.

    Thirty-eight patients received an ADC, mainly belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), and 7 patients had not received a prior bispecific antibody.

    For those with prior BCMA therapy, the PFS was 3.2 months vs 9.0 months (P = .0002) for those without, and the OS was not reached vs 12.5 months (P = .005). For those given an ADC, the PFS was 3.2 months; those given bispecifics had a PFS of 2.8 months, and prior CAR T-cell therapy had a PFS that was not reached (P = .0004).

    Team Phillies on This Evidence

    Vogl / I was fascinated by the graph of the different types of prior therapies, because I would have expected the opposite––that patients who had [received] prior ADC with belantamab would probably have a good response to CAR T cells, whereas patients who had [received] a prior bispecific aimed at BCMA would be more likely to have a BCMA-negative relapse and therefore less response to CAR T cells.

    Binder / Looking at it initially, it is a little surprising, I agree. The details that aren’t here are how soon after these drug exposures, and did they get their CAR T products? Did it just so happen that they got belantamab right before CAR T, and that maybe would influence response rates? For some reason, there was a longer duration between bispecifics and CAR T therapy because we know the longer you’re off with BCMA-targeted therapy, that’s the predictor of response to CAR T. There wasn’t as much detail here to explain this.

    Varshavsky / It’s not surprising [about] the 68% [ORR] in the ADC cohort, but it was striking that this very small number of a total of 12 patients who got T-cell redirecting therapy did incredibly well. They were probably just lucky patients, and 2 received ide-cel, relapsed, received ide-cel again, and responded again. So that’s interesting.

    Vogl / If there’s any real takeaway from this real-world study, it’s that those PFS numbers are disappointing. The PFS in the registrational pivotal study was something like close to a year, but in this case, we’re not even seeing more than 9 months. I remember seeing the original ide-cel data from the KarMMa-1 trial, and thinking, “I don’t know if it would beat salvage [therapy]”. It’s just interesting that with BCMA CARs, there’s just such a wide range of responses. It’s different than the CD19 CARs, where there are all these different CD19 CARs out there with different designs and costimulatory domains, and they all work the same. In BCMA, you have some BCMA CARs that went into the clinic and had no responses. There was one…we brought in that had…so-so responses. Then you have ide-cel, which is in the middle, and then you have ciltacabtagene autoleucel [cilta-cel; Carvykti], which is extraordinary. No one has figured out why one works and the other doesn’t.

    The Phillies on KarMMa-3 Data

    Presented by Dan Vogl, MD, MSCE

    Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received 2 to 4 prior regimens and were treated with either ide-cel or 1 of 5 standard therapies were enrolled in the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128).4 Select baseline characteristics included prior treatments, which included either an immunomodulatory agent (88% vs 94%), a proteasome inhibitor (74% vs 72%), or an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (95% vs 94%). The median time from diagnosis to screening was 4.1 years in the ide-cel group and 4.0 years in the standard of care group. Additionally, 65% vs 67% of patients had triple-class refractory disease, and 95% vs 93% had disease refractory to daratumumab.

    The final PFS analysis highlighted an 18-month PFS rate of 41% in the ide-cel arm vs 19% in the standard-of-care arm. The median PFS was 13.8 months and 4.4 months (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.63).

    In the ide-cel arm, hematologic adverse effects (AEs) of any grade occurred in 90% of patients, grade 3/4 in 93%, and grade 5 in 14%. Any-grade nonhematologic AEs occurred in 58%, grade 3/4 in 24%, and grade 5 in 4%. In the standard regimen arm, any-grade hematologic AEs occurred in 98% of participants, grade 3/4 in 75%, and grade 5 in 6%. Any-grade nonhematologic AEs occurred in 54%, grade 3/4 in 18%, and grade 5 in 2%.

    Team Eagles Inspect KarMMa-3 Data

    Garfall / What’s interesting to me about KarMMa-3 is that you see a similar pattern with the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 [NCT04181827] trial. If you look at the responses and duration of response with ide-cel in the third line of therapy and compare it with ide-cel in the sixth line of therapy in KarMMa-1, it looks the same. It doesn’t look like the CAR T cells are working dramatically better when you use them in an earlier line of therapy, which is surprising. All of us anticipated that maybe we would see some cures and plateaus if we use them earlier with healthier T cells, and maybe the cilta-cel to look a little bit better, just like antimyeloma therapy would look a little bit better in the early line of therapy. We’re not seeing that they’re working better when you use them in an earlier line of therapy.

    Binder / Keeping that in mind and looking at these curves and thinking about how the landscape of multiple myeloma has changed…, at what point are you thinking about CAR T vs bispecifics and then thinking about some of the newer bispecific data as well, and those PFS curves,…toxicity, and ease of access?

    Garfall / This trial also permitted crossover, which we hardly ever see in these types of trials. If you were on the control arm of the study, and you progressed, you could cross over to CAR T cells. Many patients in the control arm received CAR T cells in the next line of therapy. There was no difference in OS, which also informs our thinking about whether we should be rushing to give CAR T cells in the second line of therapy rather than the third or fourth line of therapy. It seems likely that your long-term survival is similar. It just gives you some reassurance that you don’t have to rush to give patients CAR T cells the minute they’re within the label. You can get them a next line of therapy and probably get the same long-term survival as when you’re talking about the risk of CAR T-cell therapy.

    Susanibar / You could do the opposite argument, right? Maybe it’s too late because the way we enrolled these patients on the clinical trial, they have to have progressive disease. The disease is growing already on the second to third line. You’re not doing these freezes when the T cells might be the healthiest because they have this growing burden of multiple myeloma that can cause immune dysfunction. There are a lot of benefits in more correlational studies. [The data from] these studies will [enable] us to interpret it and try to choose, right? What’s the fingerprint of the patient who can wait vs the patient who needs this treatment right away?

    Varshavsky / It’s a good point. We need to keep in mind that we need 1 more potential salvage, even for bridging, which we all like to look at these days. Also, bringing [us] back to the real-world analysis, you may think they would…do better because these patients didn’t have to wait for confirmed progression [and] didn’t have limitations in bridging therapy, but they did pretty much the same. We still don’t know which subgroup of patients benefits most from each strategy.

    Team Eagles on Bispecifics Before CAR T

    Presented by Asya Nina Varshavsky-Yanovsky, MD, PhD​

    Varshavsky / When I may want to do bispecific before CAR T is when a patient is presenting to me as [having] refractory [disease], not second line and not third line. They are coming with an exploding disease. I would love to do CAR T. It will take me 3 weeks to get the patient to gluconeogenesis, and it will take me another 5 weeks to get the patient the actual CAR T product delivered to me. In the meantime, I’m OK with giving selinexor [Xpovio]. In this situation, I am extremely happy that I have those wonderful off-the-shelf products. We are talking about BCMA bispecific. I have 2 wonderful off-the-shelf products [where] I can admit the patients on the same day, see them with their exploding [disease], and start the ramp-up [doses]. The time to first response to these drugs is 1 cycle. The time to best response is around 3 cycles. The toxicity––unlike CAR T, where we are worried about increased toxicities, increased CRS, increased immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, terrible cytopenia, and so on, in patients who have extremely high disease burden––[for the] bispecific does apply, but on a much lesser scale. The toxicities are much more manageable. I can take this patient and this expectation of overall response upwards of 60%. I can get them in a [good], but also deep response. At the end of it, I may keep them on this wonderful drug for as long as they’re responding, which [could] potentially be years. Or I can design a stop date and see [what happens]. This will still not take away my opportunity to do CAR Ts [in the] next line of therapy.

    Stadtmauer / Would you ever use a non-BCMA bispecific before doing a CAR T-cell therapy?

    Varshavsky / We are all worried about this type of sequencing with potential antigen loss, especially if we are continuing the bispecific through progression as opposed to doing preplanned debulking therapy and moving on to something else. We will not have this concern if we are using a GPRC5D bispecific. In terms of my choice of drug, there are many factors that will affect my choice of BCMA bispecific as opposed to GPRC5D bispecific. If I’m still dead set and getting this patient to BCMA CAR T sooner rather than later, I will offer a GPRC5D bispecific, like talquetamab-tgvs [Talvey]. We’ll plan CAR Ts [in the] next step. It will not take away all my concerns. It will take away my concerns about antigen loss. It will not necessarily take away my concern about T-cell fitness, T-cell exhaustion, or my ability to successfully collect and manufacture the CAR T product. If my goal is to get this very sick patient to CAR T with the hope of giving them this 3-plus years’ PFS from the CAR T, I will favor talquetamab. I will favor debulking and then some treatment holds and some treatment-free period in the hope of getting the T cells to their most functional state, followed by CAR T collection. I may just say, “OK, that’s a great line of therapy. Let’s ride it for as long as it works.” When we get there, we will plan CAR T all over again.

    Team Phillies on CAR T Before Bispecifics

    Presented by Sandra P. Susanibar-Adaniya, MD​

    Susanibar / When I treat patients with multiple myeloma, I want to help them live the longest, but with the best quality of life. The [average] patient with multiple myeloma is already in their late 60s, early 70s when they’re diagnosed. What I want for them is the treatment that has a high chance of being effective and can maintain a good quality of life for the longest time. We know that CAR T cell works in [older] patients over the age of 80 with renal failure and has proved to be equally efficacious. If you have a patient who is going to get 1 treatment, and then it’s done, and is 70 and can live the best life ahead of [them] for the next 3 or 4 years and then get a bispecific plus a very good response, why wouldn’t I choose to do that? The risk of infections in CAR T cells is limited, so it’s mostly in the first 3 months, but then it goes down. We have become very good at trying to identify which measures can decrease the infection. It’s that critical period of 3 months that they need more care from us, but then they can go to the community [to receive treatment], and when they go back to the clinic and tell you about their best life, they go on vacation, they’re enjoying the retirement, so they are doing well.

    The second thing for me is that you don’t know what’s going to happen later. These 3 years that they haven’t received therapy,…the landscape of multiple myeloma has changed so much in 3 years. You don’t know if they will benefit a lot from this limited- duration bispecific antibody. They get 3 years of treatment, then they get 6 months of bispecific, and then they get maybe…2 more years of treatment. They have this ability to live well.

    Then the other thing is the percentage of patients that need treatment because they cannot get to CAR T cells, now that we have the option to do it at second or third line, because it’s approved, it’s reduced. It’s less than 10% [of patients for whom] they did these extraordinary measures that we can do. Maybe we can do just a limited-time bispecific, but for most patients, the treatment that I would prefer is to do CAR T cells and then bispecific, if there are no other CAR T cells that will be approved for patients who have already progressed to CAR T cells.

    Binder / For exactly the reasons you said, bispecific before CAR T is perfect. Our goal is to get them to CAR T and maximize their quality of life and durability response. Using a bispecific, like a GPRC5D bispecific, as a holding or bridging phase in which you’re doing it, is an ideal place to use a drug like talquetamab and then get them to CAR T afterward. Because you decrease their disease burden, you minimize that GPRC5D toxicity by just giving a couple of doses. Then you bring them to CAR T afterward. You do bispecific before CAR T. Then, by decreasing their disease burden, you’re minimizing the toxicity that you may experience with CAR T if you try to bring them straight to CAR T without anything beforehand. You may even augment some T-cell activity by doing a bispecific with a different target before a BCMA-targeted CAR T, and then maybe even get a better PFS than you otherwise would have seen with better tolerability and overall better quality of life.

    Vogl / What you’re saying is applicable only to patients with incredibly high-risk or high-proliferative disease, where you’re going to be turning to a super-toxic drug like talquetamab for bridging therapy or before going to CAR T cells. For the vast majority of patients, you want to use a treatment that’s going to have the longest PFS, the best data on OS, first, especially because if you go to a CAR T cell first, your likelihood [is] that way down the line, the disease is going to relapse still with the same antigens intact and therefore have better responses to both BCMA, bispecific, GPRC5D, or FCRH5 bispecific whenever it finally gets approved. Those antigens, especially BCMA, are still likely to be there and have to relapse from CAR T, whereas if you go first to a BCMA bispecific, for instance, then you’re possibly leaving yourself without a great option afterwards. It’s only in the highest-risk patients, the patients where you don’t have the option, that you’re going to go to a bispecific first, whether it’s going to a BCMA bispecific because the patient needs something right this second, or using something like talquetamab as a bridging [therapy]. [For] most…patients, you’re going to want to do CAR T cells first.

    Team Eagles on Cilta-Cel Use

    Presented by Asya Nina Varshavsky-Yanovsky, MD, PhD​

    • A 70-year-old fit patient with standard-risk, triple-class–exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, naive to BCMA-targeted therapies, presents for treatment options.

    • After progressing on proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, the patient is eligible for cilta-cel therapy.

    • This therapy has shown an ORR of 97% and a median PFS of 34.9 months in BCMA-naive populations.​

    Stadtmauer / I want to know the detailed pathophysiology of the mechanisms and the underlying difference.

    Varshavsky / We had a very detailed and heated discussion of whether we want to expose patients when they are planning for BCMA and CAR T to BCMA bispecific, or if we even want to ever do BCMA and CAR T as opposed to BCMA bispecific. That points to prior BCMA exposure decreasing efficacy, including response rates and response duration to BCMA CAR T, and we should also keep in mind that this patient is 70 years old and fit, and potentially maybe less fit and older, if we delay CAR T to the next line of therapy at that time. There is a very strong argument for proceeding with cilta-cel in a patient who is 70 years old and fit, who right now seems to be a good candidate who can handle toxicity and can enjoy the 3 years of PFS as opposed to delaying it.

    Stadtmauer / Do we have enough data about the current practice of prior BCMA-targeted exposure?

    Garfall / I agree. The data on CAR T cells after prior BCMA-directed therapy are limited. Some of those papers we saw before were talking about [roughly] 7 patients who [received] a prior bispecific and then CAR T cells. The reason is that the more typical patient who [had] a bispecific first, say, on a clinical trial, is still in response. We still have a lot to learn about a typical patient who gets a prior BCMA bispecific, has a good response for a long time, and then progresses [to] what their outcomes are after CAR T-cell therapy. We’ll learn with time. The reason why we feel a lot more comfortable with the opposite sequence is more…that there’s been a much larger volume of reported experience of CAR T cells, and then bispecifics, just the nature of the timing of when these different trials were done. There was just a much larger experience with it so far.

    Team Phillies on Ide-Cel Use

    Presented by Dan Vogl, MD, MSCE

    • A 62-year-old patient with standard-risk, triple-class–exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma presents after 3 prior lines of therapy failed, including proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies.

    • The patient is fit and eligible for ide-cel therapy, demonstrating improved PFS (13.8 months vs 4.4 months with standard regimens) and a higher ORR (71% vs 42%) in this population​.

    Vogl / [Regarding] bridging therapy, this is something…we’ve [become] much better at than [what] we used to do on our clinical trials. I don’t even know what the rules were in the ide-cel trials, but in the cilta-cel trials, a lot of times, they had tremendous restrictions on bridging therapy. I guess we’re there to try to make it so that the CAR T cells would not appear better than they were by people getting amazing bridging therapy. We’re seeing that by using good bridging therapy, we can make it easier for people to get through the CAR T cells. We were having a theoretical discussion earlier about whether there is such a thing as too good bridging therapy, where there’s not enough antigen left for the CAR T cells. Maybe we’ll find that out someday, but so far, I don’t think we’ve seen that. Even more than that, in my clinical practice now, [I] treat patients first with something for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Then, as they’re responding to therapy, that’s when I do my apheresis, and then continue the same regimen for bridging. It’s bringing the bridging therapy even before apheresis. That feels like it’s been an effective technique for making the whole process more manageable.

    Garfall / In some ways, the big value of having these available earlier has just improved the safety and feasibility. It’s no longer this ranked thing where you’re between scheduling the manufacturing and dealing with relapsed/refractory disease. It just feels very manageable now when you have a good bridging option open. Now that we have readily available manufacturing slots, it’s just a lot easier.

    Stadtmauer / We’ve forgotten, a couple of years ago, that we were so limited in the number of cilta-cel slots we had, and basically, we took whatever slot we could get; that was the choice of the product in some ways. Now that has been eliminated as a major barrier. I would say the only somewhat common barrier, and it’s less than 20%, but I would say there are some more manufacturing failures, or at least under specification, for cilta-cel that I’ve seen than ide-cel. Therefore, that…raises the question, if that occurs, do you keep trying to harvest more cells or do another manufacturing, or is that a reason to switch to ide-cel more quickly to get a patient moving along with a BCMA- directed CAR T-cell therapy? But in some ways, that has been my personal practice. The older patients, where I am concerned about the potential toxicity, and then the patients who have some manufacturing difficulty with cilta-cel, are my most common ide-cel uses.

    Garfall / The turnaround time for ide-cel is also a little faster than cilta-cel, which is nice. The cilta-cel specifications are very persnickety.

    Winner

    • Team Eagles with 12 points

    • Team Phillies with 8 points

    References

    1. Sidana S, Ahmed N, Akhtar OS, et al. Real world outcomes with idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) CAR-T cell therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2023;142(suppl 1):1027. doi:10.1182/blood-2023-181762
    2. Munshi NC, Anderson LD Jr, Shah N, et al. Idecabtagene vicleucel in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(8):705-716. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2024850
    3. Ferreri CJ, Hildebrandt MAT, Hashmi H, et al. Real-world experience of patients with multiple myeloma receiving ide-cel after a prior BCMA-targeted therapy. Blood Cancer J. 2023;13(1):117. doi:10.1038/s41408-023-00886-8
    4. Rodriguez-Otero P, Ailawadhi S, Arnulf B, et al. Ide-cel or standard regimens in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(11):1002-1014. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2213614

    Continue Reading