What is a TR50 company? It is a business whose innovations force other businesses to change their strategic course. TR50 companies are nominated by Technology Review’s editors who look for companies that, over the last year, have demonstrated original and valuable technology, are bringing that technology to market at a significant scale, and are clearly influencing their competitors.

Complete Genomics was established in June 2005. Four years later, the company announced that it had sequenced its first human genome. By the end of 2009, Complete Genomics had sequenced 50 human genomes. The company has now significantly increased the throughput in its genome sequencing factory; it sequenced and analyzed 300 complete human genomes in Q3 2010.

Complete Genomics was chosen to be a TR50 company because it developed a computational platform that allows it to assemble DNA sequences into genomes more accurately than other technologies. Complete Genomics performs whole human genome DNA sequencing using proprietary biochemistry based on DNA nanoball arrays and combinatorial probe-anchor ligation sequencing.

Complete Genomics’ proprietary human genome sequencing technology is optimized for the exclusive study of human DNA. The sequencing technology relies on two primary components: DNA nanoball arrays (DNB arrays) and combinatorial probe-anchor ligation reads (cPAL reads). Fluorescence imaging is used to ”read” the nucleotide sequence at lower volumes and concentrations of reagents than existing systems. In addition, Complete Genomics’ proprietary instrumentation allows for greater numbers of base reads per image.

Although Complete Genomics delivered data for approximately 1,200 genomes in the first quarter of 2012, it lost $20.2 million dollars [2]. The company recently announced that it has sequenced the genomes of 600 individuals from 20 Mexican-American families to help identify some of the rare variants involved in type 2 diabetes that have eluded researchers [3]. The multigenerational, whole genome sequencing study is thought to be the largest whole genome sequencing family study conducted to date and the first such study of its kind in a Latino population.

Interested in other Top 10 Innovative Biomedicine companies for 2012? Check them all out with the tag 2012 Biomedicine TR50.

References

1. The 50 Most Innovative Companies in 2012. Technology Review. Accessed 2012 Apr 10.
2. Complete Genomics Reports First Quarter 2012 Results. Complete Genomics press release. 2012 May 7.
3. Whole Genome Sequencing in Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Study. Complete Genomics press release. 2012 May 9.

Foundation Medicine was founded by world leaders in genome technology, cancer biology and medical oncology from several renowned institutions, including the Broad Institute, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The company plans to launch a clinical diagnostic test this year that uses the latest in genetic sequencing technology —  next generation sequencing — to identify personalized cancer therapies for patients. Specifically, Foundation Medicine plans to sequence approximately 200 genes, focusing  on genes and pathways that have been shown to have clinical application. The company views this as the ”sweet spot” between conventional hot spot testing (common today) and whole genome/exome sequencing.

Foundation Medicine is backed by Third Rock Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Google Ventures, bringing the scientific and medical expertise of its founding advisors together with the company-building expertise of the leading venture capitalists in the life sciences, molecular diagnostics and emerging technology fields.

Foundation Medicine was chosen to be a TR50 company because its new diagnostics exploit a growing understanding of the molecular basis of cancer. The company is partnering with pharmaceutical companies and plans to use the comprehensive cancer diagnostic test in drug development.

Interested in other Top 10 Innovative Biomedicine companies for 2012? Check them all out with the tag 2012 Biomedicine TR50.

References

1. The 50 Most Innovative Companies in 2012. Technology Review. Accessed 2012 Apr 10.

A 35-year-old melanoma survivor. Skin under normal (left) and UV light (right). Dark areas on the right is damage from the sun.

Those pre-teens with multiple melanoma risk factors had increased sun damage compared to those with fewer risk factors. This finding is particularly distressing given that the signs of sun damage in those with multiple risk factors were significant, even relatively early in life.

The researchers suggest that UV photography could be incorporated into sun awareness intervention programs, as seeing a photograph of existing sun damage can be more persuasive to teens and young adults than vague warnings about the dangers of sun exposure. Further, note the researchers, the results of the study suggest that UV photography is most likely to be an effective intervention technique for those individuals who have multiple melanoma risk factors, as they are most likely to show significant sun damage early in life.

Reference

1. Gamble et al. Sun damage in ultraviolet photographs correlates with phenotypic melanoma risk factors in 12-year-old children. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Mar 9. [Epub ahead of print]
   View abstract

Shaped like a star with 5 to 10 points, and made of gold, the “nanostar” has a large surface area that researchers load with drug molecules.

Teri W. Odom, who led the study of human cervical and ovarian cancer cells, said:

Our drug-loaded gold nanostars are tiny hitchhikers. They are attracted to a protein on the cancer cell’s surface that conveniently shuttles the nanostars to the cell’s nucleus. Then, on the nucleus’ doorstep, the nanostars release the drug, which continues into the nucleus to do its work.

Using electron microscopy, researchers found that the drug-loaded nanoparticles were actively transported to the nucleus and dramatically changed the shape of the cancer cell nucleus. The change in shape after drug release was associated with cell death and the cell population becoming less viable.

The findings are published in the journal ACS Nano [1].

Source: Northwestern University

Reference

1. Dam et al. Direct Observation of Nanoparticle-Cancer Cell Nucleus Interactions. ACS Nano. 2012 Mar 22. [Epub ahead of print]
   View abstract

Presented in video format and featuring cancer survivors, physicians, scientists, advocates and Ronnie Andrews, the president of Clarient, the personalized medicine campaign covers what indivdualized cancer treatment means, what makes a patient’s cancer different, treatment decisions, expert insights and more.

Sponsored by GE Healthcare, the campaign focuses on education, helping patients to understand how no two cancers are the same, and how molecular-level testing may identify unique characteristics that can help doctors select alternative cancer treatment options:

Advances in our understanding of cancer have proven the disease to be far more complex than originally thought. In recent years, we’ve learned each person may have different gene abnormalities that drive their cancer. This may explain why one breast cancer patient might respond well to a given therapy while another will derive little or no benefit from the same therapy. Advanced molecular-level testing may give your doctor more information on your cancer to select the therapy and medicines most appropriate for your disease. Molecular-level testing may be instrumental in helping you gain access to clinical trials that test cutting-edge treatments and medicines.

Information on the Is My Cancer Different? website will be shared with doctors, families and caregivers to create a landscape of awareness about how individualized cancer diagnostics and treatments can help drive positive outcomes.

The Is My Cancer Different? initiative has a companion campaign called Simple Acts of Sharing, which aims to get one million people to share the question in one million minutes (just over 694 days). You can find out more about Is My Cancer Different? on Facebook and Twitter.

Source: Is My Cancer Different?

The power of this technology is that the medical images in the databases have corresponding case information. Thus, images that are found to be similar also provide information on patient diagnosis, treatments, outcomes, etc. This is particulary useful in oncology since, in more cases than you’d expect, pathologists disagree on whether a particular image shows cancer or not [1-3]. By comparing pathology images, the technology greatly accelerates the review process and allows a diagnosis to be more objective than what is currently done.

Check out their demo at the conference in the video below. James Gosling (the inventor of Java) was clearly impressed with the significance of the technology. Chris Boone, CEO and president of Visuvi, and Florian Brody, VP Marketing, highlighted and captured a section of an actual prostate cancer biopsy image and searched 90,000 images in 0.3 seconds to find related patient cases.

PathXchange is a not-for-profit professional networking portal for the global pathology community. PathXchange brings the field of pathology into the digital age with Web 2.0 features designed to promote exchange of pathological cases, knowledge and information, combining the elements of a case gallery, community content contribution and professional networking.

Are you a Twitter user? Tweet this!

References

1. Farmer et al. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists. Hum Pathol. 1996 Jun;27(6):528-31.
   View abstract
2. Lettieri et al. Discordance between general and pulmonary pathologists in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease. Respir Med. 2005 Nov;99(11):1425-30. Epub 2005 Apr 21.
   View abstract
3. Lodha et al. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of difficult melanocytic neoplasms in the clinical setting. J Cutan Pathol. 2008 Apr;35(4):349-52.
   View abstract

The new study, presented last month at the 2008 annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group [2], evaluated the differences in emotional and informational social support content in online communities for cancers with low and high survival rates.

The researchers analyzed over 3,500 messages from 587 individuals in eight online support communities located within Yahoo!Groups and the Association of Cancer Online Resources (ACOR) websites for four different types of cancer with low or high five-year survival rates. Across all communities, there was a greater amount of emotional support than informational support.

High survival rate communities contained a greater proportion of emotional support than low survival rate communities (65% vs. 55%). In contrast, low survival rate communities contained a greater proportion of informational support than high survival rate communities (33% vs. 25%).

Participants in the study were members of support communities for four different types of cancer: lung cancer, melanoma, pancreatic cancer and thyroid cancer. They participated in eight different online communities and were all reviewed under the same time period.

According to the primary author of the study, Lorraine Buis, Ph.D. [3]:

When primary care providers refer individuals to online communities for support, they should be aware that there might be differing amounts of support based on the survival rate of a particular cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Cancer Statistics Review, which reports the most recent cancer incidence, mortality, survival, prevalence and lifetime risk statistics, from 1975 to 2005 cancer patients with thyroid cancer and melanoma of the skin had high survival rates (96.6% and 91.2% respectively) while lung cancer and pancreatic cancer had low survival rates (12.1% and 5.1% respectively) [4].

In addition to helping patients, online support communities help family and friends cope with the struggles that cancer presents. This is the first study to assess the influence of cancer patient survival rates on social support content in online communities for cancer.

A number of patient social networks are listed in the Highlight HEALTH Web Directory.

References

1. Buis et al. Relationship between cancer survival rate and social support within online communities for cancer. 2008 Annual Meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
2. 2008 Annual Meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Program. 2008 Nov 15 — 18.
3. Cancer survival rates impact type of Web communities used by patients. University of Michigan Health System press release. 2008 Nov 18.
4. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2005, Age-adjusted SEER Incidence and U.S. Death Rates and 5-year Relative Survival Rates, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, based on November 2007 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2008.