1

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS EVALUATION AND RESEARCH

BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE MODIFIERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

OPEN SESSION

Meeting #32

Thursday, May 9, 2002

8:00 a.m.

Hilton Hotel

Gaithersburg, Maryland

**THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS NOT BEEN EDITED OR CORRECTED BUT APPEARS AS
RECEIVED FROM THE COMMERCIAL TRANSCRIBING SERVICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO ITS ACCURACY.**

2

P A R T I C I P A N T S

Daniel R. Salomon, M.D., Acting Chair

Gail Dapolito, Executive Secretary

Rosanna L. Harvey, Committee Management Specialist

Members:

Bruce R. Blazar, M.D., Industry Representative

Katherine A. High, M.D.

Richard C. Mulligan, Ph.D.

Alice H. Wolfson, J.D., Consumer Representative

Alison F. Lawton, Consumer Representative

Mahendra S. Rao, M.D., Ph.D.

Temporary Voting Members:

Lori P. Knowles, L.L.B., B.C.L., M.A., LL.M.

Thomas F. Murray, Ph.D.

Robert K. Naviaux, M.D., Ph.D.

Eric A. Shoubridge, Ph.D.

Jonathan Van Blerkom, Ph.D.

Edward A. Sausville, M.D., Ph.D.

Eric A. Schon, Ph.D.

Guests and Guest Speakers:

Robert Casper, M.D., Ph.D.

Susan Lanzendorf, Ph.D., H.C.L.D.

Marina O\'Reilly, Ph.D.

Jacques Cohen, Ph.D.

Amy Patterson, M.D.

Stephen M. Rose, Ph.D.

FDA Participants:

Jesse Goodman, M.D.

Philip Noguchi, M.D.

Scott Monroe, M.D.

Mercedes Serabian, M.D.

Jay B. Siegel, M.D.

Deborah Hursh, Ph.D.

Malcolm Moos, M.D.

3

C O N T E N T S

PAGE

Session I:

Update Research Program:

Laboratory of Gene Regulation, Amy Rosenberg, M.D. 5

Laboratory of Immunobiology, Ezio Bonvini, Ph.D. 15

Session III:

Welcome and Administrative Remarks,

Daniel Salomon, M.D. 28

Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to

Dr. Edward Sausville, Jay P. Siegel, M.D. 34

Ooplasm Transfer in Assisted Reproduction:

FDA Introduction

Deborah Hursh, Ph.D. 41

Cytoplasmic Transfer in the Human

Susan Lanzendorf, Ph.D. 48

Question and Answer 61

Ooplasm Transfer

Jacques Cohen, Ph.D. 100

Question and Answer 136

Transmission and Segregation of mitochondria DNA

Eric Shoubridge, Ph.D. 167

Mitochondrial Function and Inheritance Patterns

in Early Human Embryos

Jonathan Van Blerkom, Ph.D. 199

Question and Answer 224

Ethical Issues in Human Ooplasm Transfer

Experimentation

Lori Plasma Knowles, LL.B. 257

Open Public Hearing:

Jamie Grifo, M.D., American Society

for Reproductive Medicine 278

Pamela Madsen, American Infertility

Association 283

Questions to the Committee 287

4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 DR. SALOMON: Welcome this morning to the

3 Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee.

4 I have been complaining about the lack of titles

5 but at least they had numbers but ow they don\'t

6 even have a number here. Oh yes, we do, meeting

7 number 32. Eventually they will get the idea and

8 give me titles.

9 I am Dan Salomon. I have the pleasure of

10 chairing the committee today. What we are going to

11 do this morning is have about a one-hour open

12 session here that I guess merges into a closed

13 session at 8:45. Then, there will be a break at

14 9:00 and at 9:00 we will get into the main topic of

15 the morning. So, a lot of things like introducing

16 the members of the committee I will save for nine

17 o\'clock if you guys will forgive the lack of pomp

18 and circumstance this early in the morning. I also

19 reserve the right to say something totally stupid

20 for the next hour since I am from California and it

21 is awfully early for me right now.

22 Without any further ado, we should get

23 going. It is Amy getting up there, Amy Rosenberg

24 from the Laboratory of Gene Regulation, to give us

25 an update on research programs, and that will be

5

1 followed by Ezio Bonvini, from the Laboratory of

2 Immunobiology.

3 Update Research Program

4 Laboratory of Gene Regulation

5 DR. ROSENBERG: I am actually the Director

6 of the Division of Therapeutic Proteins, and I am

7 here to speak for Ed Max and Serge Beaucage, who

8 are members of the Laboratory of Gene Regulation

9 who, unfortunately, could not be here today.

10 This is a follow-up to the site visit and

11 I will run through the follow-up for Dr. Max first.

12 Dr. Max works with three research scientists, as

13 you can see here. The non-research

14 responsibilities of a laboratory include primary

15 review responsibility for several cytokines and

16 thrombolytics and anticoagulants. They

17 additionally provide expert consultation on issues

18 of molecular biology, particularly quantitative PCR

19 assays and immunoglobulin genes. In addition, Dr.

20 Max performs a lot of administrative functions. He

21 is the associate director for research in OTRR and,

22 as well, he organizes semina series; he chairs the

23 research coordinating committee; and he manages the

24 CBER library.

25 The projects that are ongoing in his

6

1 laboratory, two were primarily dealt with in the

2 site visit, mechanisms of immunoglobulin isotype

3 switching and characterization of the human 3\'

4 immunoglobulin heavy chain enhancer complex.

5 The mission relevance of the research is

6 listed here. Regarding gene regulation, FDA

7 regulates strategies to alter gene expression.

8 Basically, we have a lot of products being produced

9 by knock-in technology. Insulators are now

10 becoming increasingly important in transgenic

11 animals. Regarding isotype switching, there is a

12 little more activity, in fact. There are specific

13 strategies to have TH2 to TH1 switches. So,

14 increasing IgG, decreasing IgE to protect against

15 allergic type reactions. Additionally, our

16 division regulates several agents that are known to

17 directly affect isotype switching, cytokines IL4,

18 TGF-beta and CD40 ligand. As we all fervently

19 believe, good basic science enables appropriate

20 regulation.

21 Dealing with the first project, mechanisms

22 of immunoglobulin isotype switching, this is just

23 to remind you that isotype switching involves a

24 switch recombination event which juxtaposes VDJ

25 segments with downstream constant regions of

7

1 different isotype genes.

2 The first aspect of this project involves

3 a study of the Ku protein complex, how does this

4 participate in immunoglobulin gene recombination?

5 Ku protein has been found to be key in sealing

6 double-stranded DNA breaks, and it is found that

7 during isotype switching this protein increases in

8 B cells and that knockout mice that are deficient

9 for Ku seal DNA breaks inappropriately. Since the

10 site visit, this laboratory has cloned additional

11 breakpoints in tumors from Ku knockouts that they

12 are trying to characterize to clarify the role of

13 Ku in sealing these double-stranded breaks.

14 The second aspect of this project involves

15 characterization or identification of the role of

16 the ATM proteins in switch recombination. This is

17 a collaboration with Dr. Hodes at NCI. They found

18 that the ATM knockout mice show a defect in isotype

19 switch recombination intrinsic to B cells, and

20 since the site visit they have basically adapted

21 their assay to become really a quantitative assay

22 so that they can more accurately measure the degree

23 of switch recombination.

24 Regarding the second project, which is the

25 characterization of the human 3\' IgH enhancer

8

1 complex, there are many aspects that they are

2 investigating, one, the genomic neighborhood. That

3 aspect has been completed. The human IgH 3\'

4 enhancer complex in humans resulting from a

5 duplication event that causes large segments to be

6 duplicated so that downstream of C-alpha 1 and

7 C-alpha 2 constant regions the laboratory

8 characterized these nearly identical enhancer

9 complexes, each composed of a strong enhancer

10 designated HS12, which are flanked by two weaker

11 enhancers, HS3 and HS4. Both HS12 enhancers are

12 flanked by inverted repeats.

13 So, they went on to study the functional

14 motifs in HS12 and other 3\' enhancers. The have

15 identified functional motifs in the enhancers by

16 sequence conservation between the human enhancers

17 and the murine homologs. They have performed in

18 vivo footprinting using LM-PCR, and they have

19 performed transient transfections with luciferase

20 reporter constructs that are driven by enhancers

21 mutated in putative functional motifs.

22 Regarding this aspect, since the site

23 visit the laboratory has used DNA swan protection

24 as an alternative technique for in vivo

25 footprinting. They have extended the footprinting

9

1 analysis outside the evolutionary conserved cores

2 of the HS12 and HS4 areas, and they have

3 constructed and tested additional reporter plasmid

4 containing DNA outside the core enhancers.

5 With regard to the response of this

6 enhancer complex to IL4 and CD40 ligand, it is

7 found that these are factors, which are TH2

8 stimuli, actually inhibited the action of the HS12

9 enhancer in the germinal center B cell lines.

10 Other enhancers, an endogenous one here, were

11 unaffected. Since the site visit they have

12 investigated candidate IL4 or CD40 responsive

13 elements in the HS12 enhancer by constructing

14 reporter plasmid driven by multimerized candidate

15 enhancer motifs.

16 Regarding the last project, looking at

17 locus control region function in chromatin, they

18 found that there is a CPG island within a cluster

19 of DNA swan hypersensitivity sites that showed the

20 activity of gene insulators. So, the level of

21 transcription in the normal situation is here. If

22 you have gene insulators it cuts down dramatically,

23 and these CPG islands as well cut down dramatically

24 on transcription. So, since the site visit they

25 have constructed additional plasmid to define the

10

1 active insulator element. They are also searching

2 for a possible homologous insulator downstream of

3 the murine enhancers.

4 Additional studies in progress involve

5 chromatin immunoprecipitation studies to identify

6 transcription factors found to be enhancers in

7 vivo, and they are using single cell assays for the

8 3\' enhancer function using stable transfectants of

9 GFP constructs. That is the follow-up on the Max

10 lab.

11 DR. SALOMON: Thank you, Amy. I feel bad

12 for Alice since she is an attorney and she came in

13 a little late, she is going to have trouble with

14 the test questions on enhancer.

15 \[Laughter\]

16 We will try and help you through it. The

17 next is from the representing the laboratory of

18 immunobiology.

19 DR. ROSENBERG: No, I have to give

20 follow-up on Dr. Beaucage. I am sorry. So, the

21 laboratory of Dr. Beaucage, he works with five

22 postdoctoral fellows. His regulatory

23 responsibilities include primary review of

24 hematologic products, enzyme replacement therapies,

25 anti-cancer enzymes and thrombolytics. He provides

11

1 expert consultation on all of the nucleotide

2 diagnostic kits with the Center\'s Office of Blood.

3 He has large responsibility for helping to draft

4 the guidance for industry on submission of CMC

5 information for synthetic oligonucleotides. He has

6 also performed some inspections regarding

7 hematologic products and thrombolytics.

8 Overview of his program\--as you know, he

9 is an oligonucleotide chemist, and he is

10 responsible in large part for development of the

11 phosphoramidite method so he has three major

12 efforts. The first is effects in development of

13 deoxyribonucleotide cyclic anacylphosphoramidetes

14 and stereo-controlled synthesis of oligonucleotide

15 phosphorofioates for potential therapeutic

16 applications.

17 Essentially, since the site visit the

18 group has optimized the coupling efficiency of

19 deoxynucleoside cyclic anacylphosphoramidites to

20 enable synthesis of nuclease-resistant P

21 stereo-defined oligonucleotides containing all four

22 nucleotides. They found that pryrrolidin and DBU

23 are the preferred bases for efficient coupling of

24 deoxyribonucleotide acylphosphoramidites

25 uncontrolled for GLAS, which is important for

12

1 potential applications for microarray. They

2 published a paper in the Journal of the American

3 Chemical Society, describing the development of a

4 simple NMR method to determine the absolute

5 configuration of deoxyribonucleotide

6 phosphoramidites at phosphorus, and the findings,

7 again, have appeared in the Journal. They are also

8 working to improve the resistance of CPG

9 oligonucleotides to nuclease activities by using

10 P-stereo defined oligos.

11 The second effort involves efforts towards

12 the discovery of phosphodiester protecting groups

13 for potential applications to large-scale

14 production of alphalation free therapeutic

15 oligonucleotides and to the synthesis of

16 oligonucleotides on microarrays. They found that

17 the 3-NN-dimethyl carboxymedopropryl group\--this

18 group right here, is a novel phosphate

19 thiophosphate protecting group for solid phase

20 synthesis that has recently been developed. The

21 monomers which are required are easily prepared

22 from inexpensive raw materials. The protecting

23 group can be removed from the oligonucleotides

24 under the basic conditions that are used

25 standardly, and, thus, it is actually a very

13

1 convenient protecting group. But, most

2 importantly, the thermolytic properties of the

3 protecting group are particularly attractive to the

4 synthesis of DNA oligonucleotides on microarrays

5 because it minimizes exposure of the arrays to the

6 harsh nucleophilic conditions used for

7 oligonucleotide protection. So, these conditions

8 are actually quite mild and favorable.

9 The third effort is involved in the

10 development of thermophilic 5\'hydoxyl protecting

11 groups for nucleoside or nucleotides for synthesis

12 of, again, DNA oligos on microarrays. The

13 thermolytic phosphate protecting groups described

14 in the site visit report have been applied to the

15 protecting group in the 5\'hydroxyl of nucleosides

16 as carbonates, but this was found to be quite

17 impractical. Recently the laboratory has

18 discovered that the 5\'O and methyl, 1 phenylmethyl

19 oxycarbinol protecting group can be thermolytically

20 cleaved from nucleosides in aqueous ethanol within

21 10 minutes at 90 degrees. Here is the loss of this

22 protecting group.

23 Interestingly enough, this forms a

24 fluorescent byproduct and it permits the accurate

25 determination of the D-protection deficiency. The

14

1 protecting group appears to be stable in organic

2 solvents at ambient temperature, which also again

3 makes it increasingly attractive to the synthesis

4 of oligonucleotides on microarrays. That is the

5 follow-up for the Beaucage lab.

6 DR. SALOMON: I think someone should get

7 the message back to them that you have represented

8 them really remarkably well. That was a beautiful

9 presentation of not your own laboratory efforts. I

10 think anybody who didn\'t know that would have had a

11 clue that this wasn\'t your own work.

12 DR. ROSENBERG: That is because they

13 didn\'t ask questions.

14 \[Laughter\]

15 Thank you very much, Dan, I do appreciate

16 it.

17 DR. SALOMON: It is also a representation

18 of the kind of quality work going on at the FDA.

19 My only regret is there aren\'t enough people in the

20 audience that should hear that kind of thing

21 because that is something that we should have saved

22 for the end of day when there are a lot of people

23 here. The next presentation is from Ezio Bonvini,

24 the Laboratory of Immunobiology, Division of

25 Monoclonal Antibodies.

15

1 Laboratory of Immunobiology

2 DR. BONVINI: Thank you very much. I

3 would like to thank Dr. Salomon and the members of

4 the advisory committee.

5 My duty today is to summarize the work

6 that we have done, and the focus of my laboratory

7 is on the regulation of phospholipase C-gamma

8 activation in immune cells. The laboratory is

9 operationally divided into two inter-related units,

10 one focusing on the coupling of C-gamma-1 to the

11 antigen receptor TMB cells. The second, which is

12 headed by Dr. Rellahan, looks at the control of

13 phospholipase C activation, and in particular the

14 control mediated by a complex molecule called

15 C-Cbl.

16 Recapitulating the functional division, we

17 have two interacting units, one that I coordinate

18 which is currently made up of a research assistant,

19 Karen DeBell, and a postdoctoral fellow, Carmen

20 Serrano. I would also like to acknowledge past

21 postdoctoral members of the laboratory that, in one

22 way or another, have contributed to this project,

23 and they have actually all left and found

24 employment elsewhere.

25 Dr. Rellahan has one permanent staff

16

1 member, Dr. Laurie Graham, a lab associate, and she

2 also enjoys the benefit of a number of students who

3 have actually contributed during the summer to her

4 project.

5 Now, we do what we do for a number of

6 reasons. The laboratory has the regulatory

7 responsibility for monoclonal antibodies and

8 protein directed against T-cells for the purpose of

9 immune suppression or immunomodulation. More and

10 more so, these antibodies interact with surface

11 receptors that interfere either in signalling

12 blockade or signalling manipulation with the

13 purpose of immunomodulation. Furthermore, signal

14 transvection targeting can be used as surrogate for

15 potency of biologics. A number of biologics and a

16 number of monoclonal antibodies, also trigger a

17 number of adverse events to undesired signaling.

18 Another fundamental reason is the familiarity with

19 the knowledge base and technology.

20 The focus on PLC-gamma, PLC-gamma

21 regulates calcium mobilization in a variety of

22 cells, including immune cells, and I don\'t think I

23 need to go any further for this audience but

24 calcium is a critical component in control for

25 transcriptional activation through a number of

17

1 elements, one of which is an important element,

2 calcineurin phosphatase as a target for a number of

3 drugs; the other path being calcium dependent

4 proteinases. The duration of the effects of the

5 flux of calcium controls a number of cellular

6 responses with a prolonged calcium flux being a

7 requirement for immunocompetence. As I said

8 earlier, a number of calcium-dependent pathways are

9 a target of immunosuppressive structures which

10 include cyclosporin A, among others.

11 Again, I don\'t think I can go through the

12 data in detail, but what I would like to give you

13 is a flavor for how complex PLC-gamma is. This is

14 the molecule which is a cytoplasmic molecule which

15 contains a number of separate domains. The

16 molecules need to be recruited to the surface where

17 the substrate where PTdinsP, a lipid, resides, and

18 needs to undergo presumably a confirmation or

19 modification to bridge together the X and Y domains

20 of the catalytic subdomain.

21 Our focus has been largely on the

22 cytochromology 2 domain, which are individual

23 domains which are known to interact with calcium

24 and phosphorolytic protein and the cytochromology 3

25 domains which are known to interact with the

18

1 protein rich region. When we started these

2 investigations, the mechanism of activation of

3 PLC-gamma was largely unknown or misinterpreted, I

4 should say, so we focused on this largely because

5 by their own nature we thought they were

6 responsible for targeting phospholipase C-gamma

7 with a number of regulatory proteins. So, we

8 pursued this by mutational analysis of the enzyme,

9 and recently we obviously focused on a number of

10 other domains but I will not go into any of this.

11 This enzyme is regulated by

12 phosphorylation, and there are at least four known

13 targets in phosphorylation, here in yellow, and

14 that is also another focus of our investigation but

15 we use studies of phosphorylation somewhat as a

16 surrogate marker for activation.

17 So, I will briefly summarize the results

18 of our studies, which have all been published, and

19 I will split them vertically into the different

20 domains. The cytochromology of amino-2 terminal

21 domain is the most critical domain in the

22 activation of PLC-gamma-1 in T and B cells. This

23 domain is required in sufficient phosphorylation.

24 It is required for membrane translocation and this

25 requirement, we think, is required for activation

19

1 because its activation correlates with the degree

2 of phosphorylation. What this domain does is bind

3 a number of adapters which were recently

4 discovered. One is Lat which we identified in

5 collaboration with Larry Samuelson. The other is

6 BLnk which we identified in collaboration with Tom

7 Korozaky, who actually cloned it. The

8 cytochromology to the C domain appeared to be

9 dispensable for phosphorylation of membrane

10 translocation, although it is required for

11 activation in vivo, and the function of this domain

12 is largely unknown, but since the site visit report

13 we have gained quite a number of insights and this

14 is a very critical domain to investigate as it

15 pertains to the ability of PLC-gamma to couple to a

16 number of different pathways, including

17 co-stimulatory pathways, and to a function of

18 PLC-gamma that is independent of this catalytic

19 activity.

20 The cytochromology 3 domain appears to be

21 dispensable phosphorylation, however, enhances

22 membrane translocation, and I will provide a

23 summary at the end of how it does that, and by

24 virtue of its announcement of membrane

25 translocation, enhanced activation of the enzyme in

20

1 vivo. Its function, we have identified binding to

2 the protocol gene C-Cbl and Art Wizer\'s group, one

3 of the leaders in the field, has shown that the

4 domain binds with Lp-76, another adaptive molecule.

5 Of course, I don\'t have the time to go

6 through all the details but I just want to

7 summarize again some of the milestones that we have

8 achieved since we started this project. With

9 respect to PLC coupling to the receptor, we

10 reported initially that PLC-gamma-1 SS-2 domain was

11 critical for coupling it to the T-cell receptor.

12 Then, we explored the role of cytochromology domain

13 of PLC-gamma coupling to the B cell receptor.

14 Recently we have focused on the ability of membrane

15 raft, which are a microdomain, to function at the

16 microdomain that segregates PLC-gamma and other

17 molecules for their regulators, and we have shown

18 that recompartmentalization of PLC-gamma to this

19 microdomain is, in itself, sufficient to lead to

20 PLC-gamma activation, activation of the cells and

21 IL-2 separation.

22 With respect to the negative regulation of

23 PLC-gamma, which is the focus of Dr. Rellahan\'s

24 research, we have shown that C-Cbl inhibits

25 TCR-induced 81 activation, a reporter gene whose

21

1 activation depends on raft and isoglycerol, and

2 isoglycerol is under the control of PLC-gamma.

3 PLC-gamma-1 binds C-Cbl in its HS-3 domain and

4 C-Cbl exerts inhibitory function, however, it

5 transforms a counterpart of C-Cbl-70Z-3 Cbl which

6 lacks the ability of C-Cbl molecule to ubiquinate

7 the target protein. This molecule, 76-C-Cbl,

8 activates PLC-gamma and does so through a

9 differential pathway, a pathway which is not shared

10 completely by the T cell receptors, suggesting the

11 possibility of regulation of PLC-gamma through an

12 alternate mechanism of activation.

13 Rather than going through data, I would

14 like to give you a model that will try to summarize

15 our findings with those of other laboratories and

16 put everything together.

17 This is a schematic TCR receptor. The TCR

18 receptor interacts with the antigen it encounters

19 of antigen presenting cells. Now, in the membrane

20 of many cells, including T cells, it is

21 homogeneous. Depicted here in red are rats which

22 contain a number of different molecules, including

23 the Lck which is brought together through the

24 T-cell receptor by the action of the antigen into

25 the raft. The rafts contain an adaptor molecule,

22

1 called raft, which we have shown to interact with

2 phospholipase C. This occurs subsequent to

3 phosphorylation of Lck of the CD3 molecules which

4 are associated with the alpha and beta chain of the

5 T cell receptor. Following phosphorylation, a

6 cytoplasmic kinase called Zap 70 is recruited, and

7 it is the Zap 70 that phosphorylates these other

8 transmembrane adapters into the rat.

9 This is the signal that tells PLC-gamma,

10 which is a cytoplasmic enzyme which is

11 constitutively bound to the Lck-76 through the

12 SSS-3 domain. That is the signal to recruit

13 PLC-gamma through the amino termini cytochromology

14 to this adaptor. This interaction is further

15 stabilized by the presence of Gads, a second

16 adaptor molecule, which interacts with Lck-76 and,

17 in turn, interacts with the cytochromology-2

18 domain. That explains the contribution of the

19 cytochromology-3 domain to stabilize the

20 interaction of PLC-gamma to the membrane.

21 PLC-gamma in the raft compartment can be

22 phosphorylated by a number of kinases which are

23 either present in the raft compartment, such as

24 RLK, or recruited to the raft compartment via the

25 action of another specialized phosphorylated lipid

23

1 PIP-3, such as ITK. These are a member of the TAK

2 family of kinase which are a member of the

3 subfamily of kinase, although their mechanism of

4 regulation is different. The contribution of Lck

5 and RLK in our hands shows that it leads to

6 phosphorylation of PLC-gamma-1 which presumably

7 induces a confirmation of modification of PLC-gamma

8 and the ability of PLC-gamma to activate and

9 mobilize calcium.

10 Our data showed that if we artificially

11 target PLC-gamma through the lipid raft we

12 basically bypass this entire initial phase,

13 although Lck and RLK are still required, presumably

14 because of their contribution to the

15 phosphorylation. Artificially targeted PLC-gamma

16 to the raft compartment is phosphorylated and is

17 active bypassing the receptor entirely. So, this

18 is a dominant, positive variant of the PLC-gamma.

19 What happened with the negative

20 regulation, initial phase is the same and PLC-gamma

21 is interacting with the Lck-76. C-Cbl binds to the

22 SU-3 domain of PLC-gamma very much in the manner

23 seen with Lck-76. So, there is probably

24 competition by a mechanism which we still don\'t

25 understand. C-Cbl is also phosphorylated in

24

1 response to activation of the T cell receptor and

2 that leads to inhibition of PLC-gamma presumably

3 via a mechanism of ubiquitilation. We are still

4 investigating this, however, data that confirm that

5 this may be the case is that the variant to 73-Z

6 C-Cbl, and we now have data with another variant

7 that is Ub-ligase deficient, which results in the

8 dephosphorylation of PLC-gamma by a mechanism that

9 we still do not know but that does not require

10 Lck-76, and that leads to the activation of

11 PLC-gamma by a mechanism that is independent of the

12 T-cell receptor. So, we believe that C-Cbl and

13 Lck-76 and the equilibrium between the two

14 coordinate the assembly of the complex that in one

15 case is activatory and in the other case is

16 inhibitory.

17 As far as our future plan, we will

18 continue to investigate the role of PLC-gamma-1 and

19 gamma-2 as a second isozyme present preferentially

20 in B-cells and in other hematopoietic cells where

21 gamma-1 is ubiquitously present in all cells. We

22 will focus further between these two enzymes and

23 other pathways in the co-stimulatory activation of

24 T cells.

25 I mentioned earlier the function that the

25

1 function of the SS2 domain is still unknown and we

2 have obtained quite a bit of new exciting results

3 on the function of this domain and its coupling to

4 a number of different molecules, but the bottom

5 line that I want to give you is that domain

6 regulates the intrinsic activity of PLC-gamma by

7 intermediate intermolecular interaction which

8 regulates its opening up and the availability of

9 the other subdomains. So, it is a fundamental

10 mechanism of regulation.

11 We will continue, of course, to

12 investigate the role and mechanism of

13 phosphorylation of PLC-gamma. What the enzymes are

14 that phosphorylate the PLC-gamma are largely

15 unknown. We have a candidates are, as I mentioned

16 earlier, but what the different candidates do in

17 terms of individual residues, and there are at

18 least four and mostly likely five residues, and

19 what is the role of the individual residue is still

20 quite unclear.

21 Because we have made a dominant positive,

22 we have now also developed a dominant negative

23 PLC-gamma, and we will certainly ask the question

24 of the role of PLC-gamma development by using

25 transgenic technology. Finally, and I am not going

26

1 to dwell on this, but we are using technology to

2 recompartmentelize PLC-gamma intracellularly by a

3 condition of mechanism.

4 With respect to the role of C-Cbl again,

5 C-Cbl is probably a threshold for activation, and

6 the impact of C-Cbl on the co-stimulatory signal is

7 the ability of the cell to behave as naive or

8 memory will be investigated. We are going to

9 generate some C-Cbl-deficient lines and we are

10 going to try to do that by a number of different

11 strategies. As I said, we have some new data on

12 the C-Cbl-mediated with the delineation of

13 PLC-gamma-1. I can tell you that it is

14 ubiquitilated. The role of C-Cbl in this remains

15 to be determined but we have evidence that by using

16 Ub-ligase to inhibit the C-Cbl negative cells is,

17 in fact, the case.

18 Finally, we will try, as I said earlier,

19 to generate some C-Cbl deficient cell line using

20 interferon RNA and that will help us in the study

21 of kinetics in mice for PLC-gamma activation.

22 I just want to leave you with the number

23 of individuals who have contributed in one way or

24 another with particular reagents and a number of

25 collaborators that we have worked with whom I would

27

1 like to acknowledge for their help in this. And, I

2 will be glad to take any questions.

3 DR. SALOMON: That was a very nice

4 presentation and good work, and also my same

5 comments, that I wish more people could see the

6 kind of quality work that is going on in the FDA,

7 oftentimes, with a lot less support not because of

8 your fault or the FDA support but just because of

9 the budget constraints than we are used to in

10 academia. It is excellent.

11 The part that is confusing me here,

12 besides the fact that I really am still asleep, is

13 that we now have to switch officially to a closed

14 session to vote on accepting the report. Gail will

15 make sure that the right people have to leave.

16 Anyway, we will see you again very shortly.

17 \[Whereupon, the open session was recessed

18 to continue in closed session and reconvene in open

19 session at 9:15 a.m.\]

28

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 Welcome and Administrative Remarks

3 DR. SALOMON: If we can get everybody to

4 sit down we will start the main show, I guess we

5 should say. For the larger group here now, this is

6 meeting number 32 of the Biological Response

7 Modifiers Advisory Committee. My name is Dan

8 Salomon. I have the pleasure to chair the meeting

9 this morning. What we usually do at the start, as

10 in many big committee meetings where a lot of us

11 don\'t know each other initially\--we will certainly

12 get to know each other as the day goes on, is just

13 to go around the table and introduce yourself, and

14 make a couple of quick sentences about what your

15 interests are and your scientific expertise. We

16 can start at that end of the table. Dr. Casper?

17 DR. CASPER: Hi. I am Bob Casper, am a

18 professor of obstetrics and gynecology and

19 physiology at the University of Toronto, and I am

20 head of the Division of the Reproductive Sciences.

21 I have clinically been involved st in vitro

22 fertilization for several years, and our laboratory

23 at the present time has an interest in

24 mitochondrial research involving aging of human

25 oocytes. We have also been doing some work with

29

1 mitochondrial transfer experiments in mice.

2 DR. SALOMON: There is a button here that

3 you push and then you have to remember to turn it

4 off, otherwise there will be feedback.

5 DR. KNOWLES: Thank you. I am Lori

6 Knowles. I am from the Hastings Center. I have a

7 background in international law and policy, and I

8 am principal investigator right now of an

9 international project on reprogenetic regulation

10 and affects, and also do work in international stem

11 cell policy.

12 DR. NAVIAUX: I am Bob Naviaux, from the

13 Mitochondrial Metabolic Disease Center at the

14 University of California, San Diego. My basic work

15 is in mitochondrial DNA replication, and we also

16 have interest in inborn errors of metabolism and

17 adult and childhood mitochondrial disorders.

18 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I am Eric Shoubridge. I

19 am a professor at McGill University in the

20 Departments of Human Genetics and Neurology and

21 Neurosurgery. I have a research lab at the

22 Montreal Neurological Institute and our laboratory

23 is interested in the basis of mitochondrial

24 disease, the molecular basis, and we are interested

25 in basic, fundamental aspects of mitochondrial

30

1 genetics.

2 DR. SCHON: My name is Eric Schon. I am a

3 professor of genetics and development in the

4 Department of Neurology at Columbia University, and

5 I do everything that Eric Shoubridge does.

6 \[Laughter\]

7 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Jon Van Blerkom. I am

8 from the University of Colorado, Molecular Biology

9 Department, and I am also in clinical practice in

10 in vitro fertilization, for about twenty years.

11 DR. MURRAY: I am Tom Murray. I am from

12 the Hastings Center these days, after fifteen years

13 of medical schools, most recently Case Western

14 Reserve University. My research has been broadly

15 in the field of ethics and medicine and the life

16 sciences, and I have done a lot of work on

17 reproductive technologies, genetics and parents and

18 children.

19 DR. RAO: My name is Mahendra Rao, and I

20 am a section chief in stem cell biology at the

21 National Institute of Aging, and I am a member of

22 this committee. My interests are in embryonic stem

23 cells and adult stem cells.

24 DR. MULLIGAN: I am Richard Mulligan. I

25 am from the Harvard Medical School, Children\'s

31

1 Hospital. I am a stem cell person and a gene

2 transfer person, and a member of BRMAC.

3 DR. SALOMON: I am Dan Salomon. I am from

4 the Scripps Research Institute and my lab is doing

5 cell transplantation, tissue engineering,

6 angiogenesis and therapeutic gene delivery.

7 MS. DAPOLITO: Gail Dapolito, Center for

8 Biologics, executive secretary.

9 DR. SAUSVILLE: Ed Sausville. I am the

10 associate director of NCI\'s Division of Cancer

11 Treatment and Diagnosis, with responsibility for

12 the development of our therapeutics program, and

13 our interest is in the preclinical studies leading

14 to the approval for INDs for drugs and biologics.

15 MS. WOLFSON: Alice Wolfson. I am the

16 consumer representative on the committee. I am an

17 attorney specializing in policy holder

18 representation, with particular emphasis on

19 disability policy holders and their struggles with

20 their insurance companies. I have a strong

21 interest in health. I am a founder of the National

22 Women\'s Health Network, and I am particularly

23 interested in the social effects of postponing

24 fertility as well as the social effects of not

25 postponing fertility and I think it may have, along

32

1 with the scientific elements in it, the beginnings

2 of a possibility of a resurgence of another wing of

3 the women\'s movement.

4 DR. ROSE: I am Stephen Rose. I am from

5 the National Institute of Health, Office of

6 Biotechnology Activities, deputy director for the

7 recombinant DNA program.

8 DR. MONROE: I am Scott Monroe. I am from

9 the Division of Reproductive and Neurologic Drug

10 Products at CDER. I am an

11 obstetrician/gynecologist and a reproductive

12 endocrinologist.

13 DR. SERABIAN: I am Mercedes Serabian. I

14 am an expert toxicologist with the Office of

15 Therapeutics in the Division of Clinical Trials,

16 and I will be part of the review team at CBER that

17 will be reviewing these INDs when they come in.

18 DR. MOOS: I am Malcolm Moos, from the

19 Division of Cellular Gene Therapy at the FDA. My

20 research interests are cell and tissue

21 specification and patterning, and I am also

22 concerned with review of cellular products,

23 primarily that have to do with that general

24 biological area.

25 DR. HURSH: I am Deborah Hursh. I am also

33

1 a cellular product reviewer in the Division of Cell

2 and Gene Therapy, and I have a research lab

3 studying developmental biology and signal

4 transduction.

5 DR. NOGUCHI: I am Phil Noguchi. I am the

6 director of the Division of Cell and Gene Therapy,

7 where we see these and other novel technologies and

8 continually struggle with doing the right thing.

9 \[Laughter\]

10 DR. SIEGEL: I am Jay Siegel. I direct

11 the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review at

12 the Center for Biologics, FDA.

13 DR. SALOMON: I welcome all of you. I

14 think one of the privileges of being on the

15 committee and certainly chairing it is the chance

16 to interact with experts at each of these sessions

17 that take me into areas that are often new to me,

18 and today is definitely one of those areas. It is

19 a fantastically important discussion that we are

20 going to have that has a lot of implications on

21 what is going to happen over the next several

22 years. So, I specifically feel a lot of

23 responsibility to this particular session and how

24 we go forward.

25 There will be some more comments later on

34

1 that, just simple administrative things. My job,

2 obviously, is to stay on time and also to get the

3 questions the FDA answered and keep everybody on

4 track. So, if you will forgive me sometimes

5 playing my administrative role which sometimes

6 includes being rude. I apologize in advance.

7 The button thing, we have all been through

8 it. It gets to be a real problem with feedback and

9 also with the transcriber. So, if I ever sort of

10 look at you and kind of point to the button, it is

11 just to let you know. I think that is the major

12 thing. I want to try and keep track of sort of

13 what we are going to do next so you will sort of

14 know where we are going.

15 What we will do now is a presentation of

16 the certificate of appreciation to Dr. Ed

17 Sausville, with some more comments to follow that.

18 Then Gail Dapolito has some official things to read

19 into the record and then we will start the full

20 session with Dr. Hursh.

21 Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation

22 DR. SIEGEL: It is indeed an honor, tinged

23 with regret at his departure but an honor to speak

24 of the many services that Dr. Sausville has

25 provided to us through his participation in BRMAC

35

1 in recent years, and to thank you for them. Those

2 of you on the committee, of course, are aware of

3 his many thoughtful contributions to the

4 deliberations to this committee. Some of you may

5 be somewhat less aware of his many contributions as

6 a representative of BRMAC to the Oncological Drugs

7 Advisory Committee and other FDA committees to

8 which we have taken products for consideration of

9 approval, as well as contributions to our lab

10 evaluation and site visiting program.

11 We ask a lot, as you know, of BRMAC

12 members. It ranges from discussion of the issues

13 regarding manufacturing a product, viral purity,

14 protein stability, immunogenicity, and so forth,

15 and how we should focus on safety. The issues of

16 clinical testing of a product; what is the

17 appropriate trial design to get the answers we need

18 and what to make of the answers when those trials

19 are done; and, of course, as you heard this morning

20 the issues of evaluating our research programs and

21 how to make sure that they are tied in intimately

22 to our mission and our goals and are of the highest

23 quality.

24 We choose experts in each and all of these

25 areas to help us in our functions, but it is rare

36

1 that we have an expert\--rare both inside the agency

2 and outside but very much appreciated when we have

3 someone such as Dr. Sausville who really is the

4 regulatory expert triple threat, who integrates an

5 understanding of the clinical evaluation of the

6 basic science, of the research needed to support

7 that, and can participate in an integrated

8 assessment in any of those areas, understanding the

9 implications for the others. That is what you have

10 done for us for these several years and it is very

11 much appreciated. Thank you very much.

12 \[Applause\]

13 DR. GOODMAN: I know Dr. Zoon and I really

14 second that and appreciate the tremendous breadth

15 of expertise Dr. Sausville has brought. I was

16 going to stress the same thing. From what I have

17 understood and seen, this translational ability

18 between the laboratory and the clinical setting,

19 and an understanding of product development, those

20 things are just extremely important and we really

21 appreciate it. We look forward to continuing to

22 call on you and get your input and help. Thanks

23 very, very much. So, we have a nice certificate

24 and plaque.

25 \[Applause\]

37

1 DR. SALOMON: I can\'t not make my own

2 personal comments, having been together with Ed on

3 this committee for four years. I don\'t know how

4 many of you have seen the movie \"The Scorpion

5 King.\" I guess is depends on how old your kids

6 are, but the actor in it is called \"The Rock\"

7 because I suppose he is a professional wrestler as

8 well. But I really think that he is competing with

9 the real \"rock\" who is Ed Sausville. On any

10 committee like this you have to have a rock. I

11 mean, you have to have the one guy who you can

12 always turn to, even though everything has gone to

13 shreds, and he just hits it right on the head. You

14 have to shut up and listen to him whenever he says

15 anything. Really, whenever there has been any kind

16 of issue here, he is one of the people that I come

17 to at the break and say, \"you know, Ed, what the

18 heck do we do now?\" And, he always has good

19 advice. This is not good at all, to have Ed

20 leaving and all I can do is say I will always be

21 dragging you back here, and he is really, really

22 going to be a loss to the committee. Thank you.

23 Gail?

24 MS. DAPOLITO: I would like to read the

25 meeting statement. This announcement is part of

38

1 the public record for the May 9, 2002 Biological

2 Response Modifiers Advisory Committee meeting.

3 Pursuant to the authority granted under

4 the Committee Charter, the director of FDA Center

5 for Biologies Evaluation and Research has appointed

6 Ms. Lori Knowles and Drs. Thomas Murray, Robert

7 Naviaux, Eric Schon, Eric Shoubridge, Daniel

8 Salomon and Jonathan Van Blerkom as temporary

9 voting members for the discussions on issues

10 related to ooplasm transfer in assistive

11 reproduction. In addition, Dr. Salomon serves as

12 the acting chair for this meeting.

13 To determine if any conflicts of interest

14 existed, the agency reviewed the submitted agenda

15 and all financial interests reported by the meeting

16 participants. In regards to FDA\'s invited guests,

17 the agency has determined that the services of

18 these guests are essential. The following

19 interests are being made public to allow meeting

20 participants to objectively evaluate any

21 presentation and/or comments made by the guests

22 related to the discussions and issues related to

23 ooplasm transfer in assisted reproduction.

24 Dr. Robert Casper is employed by the

25 University of Toronto in the Division of

39

1 Reproductive Science at Mt. Sinai Hospital in

2 Toronto. Dr. Jacques Cohen is employed by the St.

3 Barnabas Medical Center. Dr. Susan Lanzendorf is

4 employed by the Eastern Virginia Medical School at

5 the Jones Institute of Reproductive Medicine. Drs.

6 Amy Patterson, Marina O\'Reilly and Stephen Rose are

7 employed by the Office of Biotechnology Activities,

8 NIH.

9 In the event that the discussions involve

10 other products or firms not already on the agenda

11 for which FDA participants have a financial

12 interest, the participants are aware of the need to

13 exclude themselves from such involvement and their

14 exclusion will be noted for the public record.

15 With respect to all other meeting

16 participants, we ask in the interest of fairness

17 that you state your name, affiliation, and address

18 any current or previous financial involvement with

19 any firm whose product you wish to comment upon.

20 Thank you.

21 DR. SALOMON: Thank you, Gail. Before we

22 officially get started, let me just make a couple

23 of quick comments. That is, the task we have here

24 is to begin now, through about four o\'clock this

25 afternoon at which point we will have gone through

40

1 a series of presentations on this issue of ooplasm

2 transfer that clearly touch on some absolutely

3 major areas, we encourage you to ask questions and

4 to set the stage for critical discussions which I

5 will try to keep on time, but also it is so

6 important that these critical discussions develop

7 that we will have to be a little flexible about how

8 that goes, leading up to a discussion at 4:00 of

9 specific questions that have been put together by

10 the FDA that will frame issues the FDA wants input

11 from us on regarding developing an IND process for

12 this field.

13 The only other comment I want to make to

14 all of you is get your thoughts out on the table.

15 There is no need to force an agreement on anybody.

16 You are more than welcome to articulate and defend

17 a minority opinion. I don\'t believe my job here is

18 to come up with some absolute consensus. My job is

19 to identify where consensus can be reached,

20 however, as well as to have you help us figure out

21 where there isn\'t consensus and perhaps other

22 additional efforts in those areas are coming.

23 We have to make sure that when we are

24 done\--I feel very strongly\--that we can say to the

25 public that this was an open, balanced discussion

41

1 of the issues. That is a major responsibility.

2 If, in the middle of discussions, somebody goes,

3 you know, we are really missing this piece and we

4 just don\'t have it here today, then that should go

5 into the record as well because I think that is

6 part of being fair to the whole field.

7 With respect to the audience, I feel you

8 are as much part of this discussion as we are. It

9 is a little harder to control you so you will have

10 to forgive that, but you are certainly not just

11 welcome but encouraged to step up at key points of

12 the discussion and bring your expertise and your

13 viewpoints to it. The rules are simply to keep it

14 brief and identify yourself, and realize that with

15 the competition to try to keep everything on time I

16 will also have to manage that. But very much,

17 please feel part of the discussion that will take

18 place today.

19 That is basically it and I am really

20 looking forward to any discussion that follows and

21 the diversity of expertise we have here. With that

22 introduction, Dr. Hursh?

23 Ooplasm Transfer in Assisted Reproduction

24 FDA Introduction

25 DR. HURSH: I would also like to welcome

42

1 the participants and the audience to this meeting

2 of the Biological Response Modifiers Advisory

3 Committee.

4 This is day one of a two-day meeting of

5 the Biological Response Modifiers Advisory

6 Committee. On this first day we will discuss

7 ooplasm transfer in the treatment of female

8 infertility. On the second day the topic will be

9 potential germline transmission during gene

10 therapy. We have chosen to link these two topics

11 as both of them deal with the transfer of genetic

12 material go gametes, sperm and eggs.

13 This has occurred in the case of ooplasm

14 transfer and is a potential inadvertent risk of

15 gene therapy. In both cases heritable genetic

16 modifications will be produced. While the FDA and

17 the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee have

18 discussed some of these issues previously, FDA felt

19 it was timely to have further open public

20 discussion on the subject of gene transfer in

21 gametes in light of the evidence of new mechanisms,

22 such as the manipulation of oocytes by which germ

23 cells can be genetically modified.

24 Since today\'s discussion is focused on

25 ooplasm transfer, I will limit the rest of my

43

1 remarks to that topic. We will hear about this in

2 much greater detail from our first two speakers

3 but, in brief, in ooplasm transfer 5 percent to 15

4 percent of an unfertilized egg cytoplasm, which is

5 called ooplasm, is transferred from a donor into a

6 recipient, and is then fertilized in vitro.

7 Recipients are women who have been unable to

8 conceive through conventional in vitro

9 fertilization. The cytoplasm of an oocyte is

10 considered specialized and it contains proteins,

11 messenger RNAs, small molecules and organelles. It

12 is not clear which of these components is the

13 putative active component of ooplasm, but it is

14 with one of these organelles, the mitochondria,

15 that we will be primarily concerned with.

16 Most of you are probably aware that

17 mitochondria are the powerhouse of a cell, the site

18 where aerobic respiration, the production of energy

19 using oxygen occurs. But they have other

20 functions. They are involved in fatty acid

21 metabolism, intracellular ion balance and

22 programmed cell death.

23 As you can see on the schematic diagram

24 here, they are a very specialized subcellular

25 structure, membrane bound, and each cell has many,

44

1 many mitochondria to support the energy

2 requirements of that cell. I would like to draw

3 your attention to the little squiggle in the middle

4 because that is one of the issues about

5 mitochondria that concerns us here. Perhaps the

6 most important feature for our purposes is that,

7 due to their supposed evolution from primitive

8 bacteria, mitochondria contain their own genome.

9 The mitochondrial genome is very small.

10 It is only about 17,000 base pairs as opposed to

11 several billion for the human genome. However, it

12 has 37 distinct genes. Unrelated individuals have

13 distinct genotypes of mitochondria, so distinct

14 that they can be used by forensic biologists to

15 establish relatedness among human beings. The

16 mitochondrial DNA, while small, is very important

17 because mutations associated with mitochondrial DNA

18 result in human disease. While I realize you

19 cannot read what is in the balloons, the point of

20 the schematic diagram here is this is the circular

21 mitochondrial genome and each one of these balloons

22 represents positions of mapped mitochondrial

23 mutations that result in human disease.

24 Mitochondria obey unusual rules of

25 inheritance. In mammals, after fertilization, the

45

1 mitochondria contributed by the sperm are

2 apparently destroyed. Therefore, the only

3 population of mitochondria in a developing embryo

4 and in the resultant progeny come from the pool

5 existing in the oocyte prior to fertilization.

6 In general, oocytes therefore get all of

7 their mitochondria from the mother and that

8 mitochondria is a homogeneous pool of a single

9 genetic type. This is a condition that is called

10 homoplasmy. This is the more common situation in

11 human oocytes. Having two distinct genetic forms,

12 two distinct pools of mitochondria is less common

13 and this is referred to as heteroplasmy. While

14 heteroplasmy is unusual with wild type

15 mitochondria, it is actually seen in people who

16 have mitochondrial disease where you can have a

17 population of mutant and a population of wild type

18 mitochondria co-existing in the same cell.

19 In studies of heteroplasmy it has been

20 observed that mitochondrial genotypes can be

21 partitioned unequally among tissues, and I believe

22 we will hear a great deal more about this from one

23 of our speakers this morning, Dr. Eric Shoubridge.

24 So, what happens after ooplasm transfer?

25 If there are mitochondria transferred during

46

1 ooplasm transfer, what is the result? In March of

2 2001, a laboratory of Dr. Jacques Cohen reported

3 that two children born after the ooplasm transfer

4 protocol were heteroplasmic, which means the

5 genotypes of both the ooplasm donor and the mother

6 could be detected in their tissues. These children

7 were approximately one year old at the time of this

8 analysis, so this was a persistent heteroplasmy

9 that had been maintained.

10 At the time of Dr. Cohen\'s publication the

11 FDA was already considering action in the area of

12 ooplasm transfer. The report of heteroplasmy

13 raised our concerns, as did information in two

14 pregnancies occurring after ooplasm transfer

15 resulted in fetuses with Turner\'s syndrome, a

16 condition where there is only one X chromosome.

17 In addition, despite the fact that Dr.

18 Cohen refers to this as an experimental protocol

19 that should not be widely used, we felt that it was

20 beginning to spread rapidly into clinical practice

21 in the United States by 2001. There were at least

22 23 children born in the United States after using

23 ooplasm transfer. Three United States clinics had

24 published on this procedure and we, at FDA, were

25 able to find five additional clinics that were

47

1 advertising this procedure on the internet.

2 FDA had concerns about whether we

3 understood all the ramifications of this procedure

4 and whether we understood its safety in particular,

5 and reacted by sending letters to practitioners who

6 were identified by publications on ooplasm transfer

7 or by advertisements offering the procedure. We

8 advised practitioners that we would now require the

9 submission of an investigational new drug

10 application, or IND, to the agency and its

11 subsequent review to continue to treat new

12 patients. After the letter was issued we had

13 telephone conversations with several practitioners

14 who wanted to know more about the IND submissions

15 procedure.

16 After these conversations FDA felt this

17 topic would be well served by open public

18 transparent discussion of the ooplasm transfer

19 procedure and the data behind it, hence this

20 meeting. The major issue we, at FDA, are trying to

21 achieve consensus on at this advisory committee

22 meeting is are preclinical and clinical data

23 supporting the safety and efficacy of ooplasm

24 transfer sufficient to justify the risks of

25 clinical trials? If additional data are needed,

48

1 what types of data would be the most informative,

2 what model systems, what size studies?

3 FDA\'s tasks in regulating new therapies is

4 to weigh risks and benefits and to determine what

5 safeguards need to be in place to ensure the safety

6 of human subjects. That is what we will do with

7 ooplasm transfer. While the FDA welcomes

8 discussion with all interested parties, our topic

9 today is very limited. We will, therefore, limit

10 today\'s discussion to the science behind ooplasm

11 transfer and not extend that discussion to FDA\'s

12 jurisdiction in general, FDA\'s proposed rules for

13 the regulation of human cells and tissues and other

14 assisted reproductive technologies. Thank you very

15 much.

16 DR. SALOMON: Thank you, Deborah. Unless

17 there are any pressing questions, I think the

18 purpose of that was clearly just to set the stage

19 for what is to follow. What I would like to do is

20 invite Dr. Susan Lanzendorf to present cytoplasmic

21 transfer in the human oocyte. She is from the

22 Jones Institute of Reproductive Medicine.

23 Cytoplasmic Transfer in the Human

24 DR. LANZENDORF: I have come here today to

25 share some of the experiences that we have

49

1 encountered at the Jones Institute with the

2 procedure of cytoplasm transfer in the human.

3 Cytoplasmic transfer was first considered

4 at the Jones Institute back in 1990 when an

5 investigator, a clinical fellow, Flood et al.,

6 reported that the developmental potential of

7 oocytes to mature in vitro can be increased by

8 injecting with the cytoplasm of oocytes matured in

9 vivo. This was performed in the monkey model.

10 This study found that 13 percent of the

11 injected oocytes resulted in pregnancies while none

12 of the sham-injected or non-surgical controls

13 resulted in a pregnancy. The investigators felt

14 that this suggested that factors may be present

15 within the cytoplasm that control genetic,

16 maturational and/or developmental properties.

17 Then, in 1997, Cohen and coworkers

18 reported the first human pregnancy from the

19 transfer of cytoplasm from donor eggs. They

20 reported that the goal of the procedure was to

21 provide healthy cytoplasmic factors to the eggs of

22 the patients who repeatedly produce embryos of poor

23 quality.

24 We were very interested in this report.

25 We see a lot of patients who come through in vitro

50

1 fertilization who repeatedly fail to achieve a

2 pregnancy and many times we are at a loss on how to

3 continue treatment in these patients who just don\'t

4 seem to get pregnant. So, we approached our

5 institutional review board to see if we could

6 investigate this procedure.

7 We decided to look at two groups of

8 patients, in one of which the wife is 40 years of

9 age or older, or in couples who have had at least

10 two previous IVF attempts which resulted in only

11 poor quality embryos. In in vitro fertilization we

12 have found that when you transfer embryos that have

13 an ideal morphology they result in a higher

14 pregnancy rate than those who have less than an

15 ideal morphology. So, this was an attempt to try

16 to improve this and, hopefully, increase the

17 pregnancy rate.

18 Again, we put this to the institutional

19 review board and we requested permission to do this

20 with 15 consenting patients. We worked very hard

21 on our consent form, being that this was a

22 procedure where very, very little was known. So,

23 of course, we tried to emphasize to the patients

24 the risks that they might encounter, including that

25 the effect of the procedure on the couple\'s eggs or

51

1 their ability to establish a pregnancy totally

2 unknown. What is also unknown is if the procedure

3 would increase the risk of obstetric complications,

4 or if the thawed donor eggs would even survive. I

5 should point out here that we used frozen and

6 thawed donor eggs for our procedure. So, we

7 emphasized to the patient that if the thawed eggs

8 didn\'t survive the procedure would not be performed

9 and they may not get a transfer. In addition, the

10 patient\'s eggs may not survive the procedure or

11 they may fail to fertilize and develop normally and

12 they would not obtain a transfer.

13 We also emphasized the risk to the

14 offspring. It is not known if the procedure would

15 increase risk of obstetric complications or fetal

16 abnormalities. The eggs could be damaged in some

17 way that could affect the offspring. And, there

18 was the possibility that genetic material could be

19 transferred from the egg donor to the patient\'s

20 eggs and it is unknown if this could adversely

21 affect the offspring.

22 In our consent form we did break this out

23 into talking and making clear to the patient that

24 there are two types of genetic material, DNA from

25 the nucleus of the egg and the DNA from the

52

1 mitochondria. So, we were careful to make them

2 understand that the two different possibilities of

3 genetic material could be transferred.

4 The consent form also stressed that

5 because the procedure is so new there is no way to

6 determine what the exact risks are, or at what rate

7 the risks occur. In our other consent forms we try

8 to say, you know, we have seen a 50 percent

9 survival rate, or we have seen a 60 percent

10 pregnancy rate but we couldn\'t even do this with

11 this procedure because it is so new so we

12 emphasized this to them.

13 It was also recommended that all of the

14 patients who achieve a pregnancy have an

15 amniocentesis regardless of their age. Then, of

16 course, the boiler plate other risks that cannot be

17 identified at that time.

18 This is just to show you quickly how we

19 perform the procedure. Again, we used

20 frozen-thawed donor eggs so the donor eggs that

21 contributed the cytoplasm were collected and

22 cryopreserved at a previous state. Then, when the

23 patient came through on the day of their aspiration

24 and cytoplasm transfer, the donor eggs were thawed.

25 So, before we get here what we will have

53

1 done is\--this is the pipet here that we also use to

2 do the donation. This is the egg-holding pipet

3 which just holds the egg in place. This is the

4 egg. So, prior to getting here we would have got a

5 drop of sperm and picked up a sperm from the

6 patient\'s husband and loaded it in the pipet. We

7 then take this pipet with the sperm and insert it

8 into the donor egg. Then, once in the donor egg,

9 we draw up cytoplasm that will be transferred.

10 We then move to the recipient\'s egg, the

11 patient in this scenario, and then put that pipet

12 into the egg, inject that cytoplasm into the egg,

13 along with the husband\'s sperm. Actually, what

14 occurs is the cytoplasm transfer and the

15 utilization of the egg at the same time.

16 Our results, we had eight patients in

17 eight cycles who were 40 years of age or over, with

18 an average age of 44. The procedure did not appear

19 to have an effect on embryo quality. I say \"did

20 not appear\" because there are too few numbers of

21 actual embryos to compare with other embryos to

22 make a significant conclusion. No pregnancies were

23 established in any of these eight patients.

24 In the same 40 years or older group, 39

25 eggs were retrieved, with a mean of 3.2 eggs per

54

1 patient. This is low but is normal in patients in

2 this age group. We had a 54 percent fertilization

3 rate, and this would be with the cytoplasm transfer

4 occurring at the same time. To do these

5 procedures, we had to use cytoplasm from nine donor

6 eggs, and these donors ranged in age from 25 to 29.

7 Of the donor eggs, 62 percent survived the thaw

8 procedure and were used.

9 We had three patients who came through who

10 had a history of poor quality embryos. Actually,

11 this is the group of patients that we thought we

12 could really help with this procedure. We did not

13 go into it thinking that the older patients would

14 be the ones that would benefit mostly, and I think

15 the other investigators who performed this

16 procedure would probably agree that it is not

17 helping the older aged couples.

18 So, these were three patients who had

19 significant history of poor quality embryos in the

20 past. The age of these patients was 35, 35 and 38.

21 The procedure did appear to have an effect on

22 embryo quality. To us, the embryos looked much

23 better than those that we had seen from these same

24 patients previously. Of those three patients, one

25 achieved a pregnancy. It was a twin pregnancy that

55

1 was established. That particular patient had

2 undergone six previous IVF attempts with fresh

3 transfer and three attempts with cryotransfer and

4 never achieved a pregnancy.

5 In these three patients 42 eggs were

6 retrieved, a mean of 14.3 which, as you can see, is

7 much higher than in the older patients; 62 percent

8 fertilization rate with the cytoplasm transfer.

9 This is the information on the donors that provided

10 the eggs, and they had a 66 percent survival, those

11 three donors.

12 These are the twins. I have been told

13 that the medical director has spoken with the

14 couple about having their twins evaluated

15 genetically for all the questions that we are here

16 about today. The couple is not interested. They

17 feel their children, who are now three or four

18 years old, are very healthy and very normal and

19 they don\'t want anything else done with that.

20 We were also looking at other things when

21 we were doing these studies and before we received

22 our letter to stop doing them. One of the things

23 that we were interested in was the inadvertent

24 transfer of the nuclear material, the chromosomes

25 from the donor egg into the recipient egg. I

56

1 should point out here that would had actually met

2 with a mitochondrial geneticist at our institution

3 to find out\--you know, we posed this problem of

4 transferred mitochondria, and ask him did he think

5 we would have a problem there; did he think that

6 these mitochondria that we transferred we be passed

7 on. He assured us no, it was too few mitochondria

8 and it couldn\'t happen. So, we really didn\'t go

9 into it thinking that that would be the problem.

10 We were more concerned with accidentally

11 transferring the nuclear material.

12 So, we looked at some of the eggs that we

13 had taken cytoplasm out of using staining. We can

14 actually see the spindle of the egg, and with this

15 stain we can see the chromosomes on the spindle.

16 So, we looked at these eggs that provided the

17 cytoplasm, and this was published just recently,

18 last year, and the oocytes that we evaluated

19 resulted from either clinical cases I just

20 described to you or research procedures which we

21 are doing.

22 In this case 12 oocytes were thawed but

23 were not used for the transfer. They weren\'t

24 needed to provide cytoplasm so we used those as

25 controls. We had 23 eggs that we thawed which

57

1 survived the donation procedure. These are the

2 ones that served as tests.

3 When we did the staining procedure on

4 these eggs, the control eggs all demonstrated

5 normal meiotic spindle but when we looked at the

6 test eggs we found that 2/23 eggs that provided

7 cytoplasm demonstrated total dispersion of the

8 chromosomes from the metaphase plate, and complete

9 disorganization of the spindles.

10 Of course, the numbers are very small but

11 there was no significant difference between the two

12 groups. So, we wondered if this was something to

13 do with the drawing out of the cytoplasm that

14 potentially disrupts the spindle. We wondered,

15 since it is a procedure that is very similar to

16 ICSI, if this would be the same rate of meiotic

17 spindle damage that you would see in ICSI oocytes.

18 Because we were worried about this we

19 looked at ways to see if there were some way we

20 could prevent this. So, we looked at a new

21 microscope that was on the market, the PolScope.

22 Having this attached to your microscope actually

23 lets you visualize, while you are doing a

24 procedure, the actual spindle so that you can see

25 the spindle and you can stay clear of it.

58

1 Here is the egg, just a small part of the

2 egg, the polar body and the spindle here. So,

3 while you are doing the procedure, you are sticking

4 something into the egg and you can see the spindle

5 and stay clear of it. This is equipment that is

6 currently used in many laboratories, including ours

7 now, in which clinical ICSI cases are performed, or

8 research involving enucleation where they want to

9 see where the spindle is so they can take out the

10 nuclear material.

11 We also did a little work with looking at

12 this from a research aspect. We had a clinical

13 fellow, Sam Brown, who wanted to see if the

14 original work of Flood in 1990, where we used

15 immature eggs, would have the same ft, cytoplasmic

16 transfer. The idea with it is the developmental

17 failure of human embryos derived from oocytes

18 matured in vitro may be due to the deficiency of

19 cytoplasmic factors. In in vitro fertilization we

20 have found that when patients get a lot of immature

21 eggs, eggs that need more time maturing before they

22 can be inseminated, these eggs do not do as well.

23 So, the idea was to see if human prophase I oocytes

24 became developmentally competent after

25 microinjecting them with the ooplasm of eggs

59

1 matured in vivo within the body.

2 Sam hypothesized that such an injection

3 would improve fertilization and blastocyst

4 development of these immature eggs. This was just

5 a research project. None of these eggs were

6 transferred back to patients. It was with the hope

7 of salvaging immature eggs. For example a patient

8 who gets all immature eggs after a retrieval could

9 have this procedure done and improve her chances of

10 achieving a pregnancy.

11 In the first part of the experiment looked

12 at the effect of cytoplasmic transfer from in vivo

13 matured eggs into PI eggs. So, we had three

14 groups, control eggs which were put on a stage of

15 the microscope but not actually injected. We found

16 that 74 percent of these matured to metaphase II

17 after continued culture. Sham eggs were eggs that

18 were injected with an equal amount of media only,

19 not cytoplasm, and we found that only 50 percent

20 matured to metaphase II. Cytoplasm transfer eggs

21 that actually had the procedure, 58 percent matured

22 to metaphase II. So, these findings suggested that

23 injecting a substance into an egg may have a

24 negative impact on maturation.

25 We also inseminated these eggs to see if

60

1 they could be fertilized, and in the control the 14

2 eggs that matured to metaphase II we had a 50

3 percent fertilization rate. Shame injected, we

4 only had 38 percent fertilization rate. With

5 plasmic transfer four of the eight fertilized,

6 which was 50 percent. The development after

7 culture was not remarkable between the three

8 groups. The numbers were very low and similar to

9 what we always see with immature eggs.

10 We also looked at the effect of

11 cytoplasmic transfer on eggs that matured in vitro.

12 They were first allowed to mature in vitro and then

13 they were given the cytoplasm of an egg that was

14 matured in vivo. There were 17 control eggs that

15 received no cytoplasmic transfer, and after

16 insemination 53 percent of these fertilized.

17 Cytoplasmic transfer, 47 percent of these

18 transferred. We did see a little bit higher rate,

19 since these were cytoplasmic transfers and the

20 injection of a single sperm having three prime

21 nuclei suggests that there was damage to the

22 spindle in these eggs.

23 In conclusion, we feel that cytoplasmic

24 transfer, if performed clinically, should move

25 forward cautiously and with the full consent of the

61

1 patients. Just to give you some of the feelings of

2 the patients, should this procedure be found to not

3 be harmful to the offspring and studies continue,

4 we do have many patients out there who are not

5 bothered by the fact that their offspring would

6 have the genetic material of another person because

7 for these patients the only other recourse is to

8 use donor eggs. So, in that case, their children

9 would have none of their genetic material. So,

10 having some of their genetic material appeals to

11 them, and a lot of patients would pick this

12 procedure over going to the donor egg. Thank you.

13 Question and Answer

14 DR. SALOMON: Thank you, Dr. Lanzendorf.

15 This initial presentation is open for questions and

16 discussion. There are so many different kinds of

17 questions here and you, of course, get the

18 privilege of being the fist one. One of the things

19 that is going to come up is if you go to an IND,

20 then in this whole area the big question is always

21 going to be preclinical work and models. So, let

22 me make the first question here a little bit about

23 these primate studies.

24 The primate studies were done in 1990, and

25 then the first clinical report you made was seven

62

1 years later, in 1997.

2 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

3 DR. SALOMON: Maybe at some point you

4 could kind of explain to us in the seven years, but

5 specifically for the primate studies, can you make

6 me understand this a little bit better because it

7 will be important later in our discussions for is

8 this a good model because then one might focus on

9 such a model. To the extent it is not a good

10 model, one should be cautious.

11 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

12 DR. SALOMON: So, the question I would

13 have specifically is what defines this model as a

14 model for infertility?

15 DR. LANZENDORF: The non-human primate as

16 a model?

17 DR. SALOMON: Yes. Essentially, you had

18 these oocytes. I am assuming, just guessing, that

19 you cultured them in vitro for a while and, the

20 longer they were in vitro, they became less and

21 less viable. So, when you implanted the

22 controls\--I am not saying you did, I guess this

23 wasn\'t your study, but when they implanted the

24 oocytes and they didn\'t get a successful pregnancy

25 and they managed to salvage 13 percent with

63

1 cytoplasmic transfer from a fresh egg\--is that

2 right?

3 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

4 DR. SALOMON: So, it was the culture of

5 the oocytes for X number of days or weeks that

6 caused them to lose their viability?

7 DR. LANZENDORF: When you take immature

8 eggs from a primate, a monkey or a human, and they

9 haven\'t completed the maturational process within

10 the ovaries, they have to complete it in a dish and

11 that usually takes about 24 hours, sometimes 48

12 hours. These eggs historically are not as

13 developmentally competent as eggs that had

14 completed maturation in the body. Does that make

15 sense? Before we go in to remove an egg from a

16 patient we try to time it so that when we are

17 taking these eggs out they are already mature. So,

18 just the whole aspect of collecting immature eggs

19 for in vitro fertilization, monkey or human, has

20 always posed a problem when these eggs are not as

21 competent.

22 That early study that was published in

23 1990 was not looking at cytoplasmic transfer as a

24 way to cure this problem. It was trying to look at

25 what is the problem. What is it about immature

64

1 eggs that they don\'t do well? So, they said, well,

2 if we put some cytoplasm from one that was matured

3 in vitro into this egg, will it do better? And, it

4 did. So, that 1990 report was never, from what I

5 understand, a report to say let\'s go out there and

6 start doing cytoplasmic transfer. You know, I

7 don\'t think the Jones Institute looked at it as

8 though, oh, we can cure these immature eggs from

9 this problem and let\'s start doing this in

10 patients. So, that is why when you talk about the

11 seven years\--you know, I don\'t think any of us even

12 considered doing it as a procedure to help

13 infertile couples.

14 DR. SALOMON: I appreciate that

15 clarification. Sort of the follow-up then is 13

16 percent were successful pregnancies with this

17 procedure.

18 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

19 DR. SALOMON: Again, were there a whole

20 lot of miscarriages and other problems in the other

21 87 percent?

22 DR. LANZENDORF: I don\'t know, but having

23 done monkey IVS and worked with monkey IVS and used

24 it as a model, I can say that a lot of times doing

25 in vitro fertilization in fertile monkeys is a

65

1 hundred times harder than doing it in a group of

2 infertile human patients. You know, monkeys are

3 somewhat difficult to work with during in vitro

4 fertilization. There are sites around the United

5 States, primate centers and places like that, who

6 have got it down to a fine art and I do believe

7 that the non-human primate is the model that should

8 be looked at. But, again, it is a very difficult

9 procedure but there are places in the United States

10 that do it quite well and I believe could do these

11 experiments.

12 DR. SALOMON: Richard?

13 DR. MULLIGAN: Just to go back to the data

14 set, between the 1990 report and 1997, can you

15 characterize what is the complete data set? Or,

16 can some expert tell us? I assume there have been

17 other things that were done, repeats from the 1990

18 experiment?

19 DR. LANZENDORF: No, there was nothing

20 ever done.

21 DR. MULLIGAN: So, the wealth of

22 information about the potential of this comes from

23 that 1990 experiment?

24 DR. LANZENDORF: Right. Again, that was

25 not an experiment exploring cytoplasm transfer. It

66

1 was trying to look at is it the cytoplasm the

2 problem? Is it the nucleus that is the problem?

3 Is it the monkey\'s uterus that is the problem? So,

4 it was just a basic study trying to look at what is

5 the problem with immature eggs; it was never a

6 cytoplasmic transfer procedure. So, it was never

7 pursued as an experimental design to continue.

8 DR. MULLIGAN: Just for perspective, how

9 many actual eggs were in that group that resulted

10 in 13 percent pregnancy?

11 DR. LANZENDORF: I have no idea. I was

12 not there and I don\'t believe I brought the article

13 with me. I am sorry.

14 DR. SAUSVILLE: And when one speaks of a

15 sham procedure in this case, which comes up both in

16 the monkey experiments and in some of the more

17 recent data, does sham mean withdrawal from

18 something else\--

19 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

20 DR. SAUSVILLE: \--in the donor egg and

21 manipulation of the recipient egg? Or is it

22 saline? Could you give us a little bit of

23 background about what the exact shams and controls

24 are?

25 DR. LANZENDORF: Well, in our lab a sham,

67

1 an actual control would be one that was just put on

2 the stage of the microscope, that would have seen

3 the effects of the change in temperatures and

4 moving around and being put into dishes. A sham

5 injection is one in which, at least in experiments

6 I was involved with, we would draw up culture media

7 and use that to inject into the egg. So, the egg

8 was actually seeing the movement of substance, the

9 puncture of the needle and things like that. You

10 know, in some of the experiments the sperm was

11 injected also, in some it wasn\'t. That wasn\'t part

12 of the design. But we tried to keep it exactly

13 like the actual procedure without the transfer of

14 the cytoplasm in a sham.

15 DR. SAUSVILLE: But a key point is that

16 the culture medium is what constituents the sham

17 injection. Isn\'t that correct?

18 DR. LANZENDORF: Yes.

19 DR. SAUSVILLE: And that, of course, has

20 145 millimolar of sodium chloride as opposed to

21 what is inside.

22 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

23 DR. SAUSVILLE: So, a small amount

24 actually then could result in a market change\--

25 DR. LANZENDORF: Right. We realize that

68

1 probably our shams should actually do worse than

2 cytoplasmic transfer because of these things being

3 dumped into them.

4 DR. SAUSVILLE: And they did, right?

5 DR. LANZENDORF: And they did.

6 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Monroe?

7 DR. MONROE: I have a question about the

8 relevance of the monkey experiment that we have

9 been addressing and the type of patient who might

10 be a recipient of this procedure. It seems to me

11 that in the monkey studies the question was the

12 issue of immature eggs.

13 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

14 DR. MONROE: It wasn\'t a question of

15 people for whom that wasn\'t necessarily the problem

16 but just had poor embryo development. Is that the

17 correct interpretation? So, they are very

18 different questions that we would be addressing.

19 DR. LANZENDORF: Right. Those three

20 patients, the people that we think could be helped

21 from this procedure, we really don\'t know what is

22 wrong with their eggs but they are typically young

23 patients. They do well on retrieval. They stem

24 well. They get a large number of eggs. That is

25 what usually happens with this age group. They

69

1 fertilize find but then, after being in culture for

2 a couple of days, they usually would not even be

3 recognizable as an embryo\--total fragmentation. We

4 use a grading scale of one to five, one being the

5 best and five the worst, and they were typically

6 all five. In the cases where we would see that

7 transfer would have been pointless but usually

8 patients like a transfer even if they are told that

9 it is probably pointless. So, there is something

10 inherent about those patients\' eggs that is the

11 problem and whether it is a cytoplasmic thing we

12 don\'t know, but it is something we see over and

13 over again. The patient who achieved a pregnancy,

14 this happened to her in like six other stem

15 stimulations and there was nothing else that we

16 could offer her.

17 DR. RAO: Two sort of more scientific

18 questions, one was sort of an extension of what Dr.

19 Sausville asked, and that is, has there been any

20 comparison with cytoplasm from any other cell as a

21 control that has been used in these experiments?

22 DR. LANZENDORF: From another egg?

23 DR. RAO: Not just from another egg, from

24 any other cell as a control?

25 DR. LANZENDORF: No.

70

1 DR. RAO: I mean, do you really need

2 oocyte cytoplasm?

3 DR. LANZENDORF: We have always used

4 oocyte cytoplasm.

5 DR. RAO: And to your knowledge, there is

6 no data?

7 DR. LANZENDORF: Not that I know of.

8 DR. RAO: You showed data where you had

9 pronuclei, right?

10 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

11 DR. RAO: So, there was maybe a high

12 probability of injury. Were those experiments done

13 with the spindle view imaging system?

14 DR. LANZENDORF: No. We got our PolScope

15 at the same time we got our letter.

16 DR. NAVIAUX: Just a question about the

17 optics that are being used. At any time, are the

18 oocytes exposed to ultraviolet light?

19 DR. LANZENDORF: No.

20 DR. NAVIAUX: And the imaging of the

21 PolScope, what are the physics of that?

22 DR. LANZENDORF: I am not sure, but it is

23 just a changing of the wavelength of the light that

24 allows you to see the spindle. It was initially

25 designed, I think, to look at the membrane around

71

1 it. We found that by using it we could also see

2 the spindle.

3 DR. NAVIAUX: Are dyes ever used to image

4 nucleic acid?

5 DR. LANZENDORF: No. The PolScope is used

6 by some labs pretty extensively for ICSI. So,

7 there are probably pretty good pregnancy results

8 for that. I hope I am not getting the PolScope

9 people in trouble. It is routinely used.

10 DR. SCHON: PolScope is polarizing optics.

11 It has been around for fifty years and it is just

12 like a microscope.

13 DR. NAVIAUX: The basis for that question

14 is that certain types of mitochondrial dysfunction

15 are responsive to ultraviolet lights and others are

16 less responsive. But that is not relevant.

17 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Casper?

18 DR. CASPER: Susan, do you know if any

19 monkeys were actually born from the cytoplasmic

20 transfer, from that 13 percent pregnancy rate? If

21 so, are there any records regarding their health,

22 life span or anything like that?

23 DR. LANZENDORF: I don\'t think there are

24 any records at all. I have the article here. It

25 just talks about pregnancy rate. It doesn\'t say

72

1 anything about live births that I can see.

2 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Rao?

3 DR. RAO: Another question, are the donor

4 oocytes tested in any fashion?

5 DR. LANZENDORF: Our donor oocytes are

6 eggs from our typical donor pool. We have an

7 active donor egg program. So, somebody coming into

8 the program to donate their eggs for a pregnancy in

9 another couple have extensive screening,

10 psychological as well as medical, and we do

11 genetics testing and things like that.

12 DR. RAO: Does that include mitochondria?

13 DR. LANZENDORF: No, it does not include

14 mitochondrial diseases, no. But they are tested.

15 DR. SALOMON: So, another question, you

16 know, in this perfect position to answer all these

17 questions at the beginning of the day, not all

18 necessarily that you have to defend, but you used

19 the term \"embryo quality\" a couple of times. If

20 you will excuse my ignorance, can you educate me a

21 little bit about what do you do objectively to

22 determine embryo quality?

23 DR. LANZENDORF: Embryo quality is just

24 basically all morphological. No one has devised

25 some kind of biochemical marker to say this embryo

73

1 is better than that embryo, but typically you start

2 out with the one cell; then you have two, then

3 four; and you see that beautiful clover leaf kind

4 of pattern going on there. When you start seeing

5 poor quality embryos you will see that the cleavage

6 divisions aren\'t equal. Some of the blastomeres

7 are very large, some are very small. There are

8 other things called cytoplasmic blebs and fragments

9 that start forming and these things can take over

10 the entire\--all the blastomeres just start

11 fragmenting and people think this is some kind of

12 apoptosis that is going on.

13 Through the years we have seen that when

14 you transfer four perfect four grade cells with no

15 fragmentations, the implantation rate is

16 considerably high than if you were to transfer five

17 totally fragmented, very poor embryos. Very

18 rarely, if ever, would you see a pregnancy there.

19 So, we are even confident telling these patients

20 you don\'t want to undergo the transfer or pay for

21 the transfer; your chances of getting pregnant with

22 these three grade five embryos is zero. So, it is

23 an assessment. It is not always correct. A lot of

24 times we put three grade one embryos and a patient

25 doesn\'t get pregnant, or we put some very poor

74

1 quality embryos and the patient does get pregnant.

2 So, it is not 100 percent. But when you see a

3 patient come through six, seven times and every

4 single time they have very, very poor quality

5 embryos it becomes something about this patient.

6 You know, what can we do to improve this? Doctors

7 will try changing stimulation protocols and it

8 doesn\'t work. We have a certain class of patients

9 and this is their problem, and they are told to go

10 to donor egg.

11 DR. SALOMON: Just to summarize, if you

12 have a good relationship with your technologists

13 you have a sense of confidence in this subjective

14 reading\--

15 DR. LANZENDORF: Oh, yes.

16 DR. SALOMON: \--of good and bad embryos.

17 DR. LANZENDORF: Yes.

18 DR. SALOMON: I mean, just to show you

19 that you are not alone in that area, I am

20 interested in islet transplantation and we are

21 similarly clueless about an objective determination

22 of a quality islet preparation, and that is a major

23 area now focused for research in a program that I

24 am involved in.

25 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

75

1 DR. SALOMON: So, it is not unusual.

2 DR. SCHON: These patients who have gone

3 through six or seven times and have always had

4 these poor quality embryos, are they consistently

5 poor quality from day one to fertilization onward,

6 or is it sort of an abrupt change, let\'s say, on

7 day two or three?

8 DR. LANZENDORF: It is usually the first

9 cleavage division.

10 DR. SCHON: So, at the first cell division

11 you start seeing these abnormalities, but these

12 multiple patients that were selected for

13 cytoplasmic transfer and had had consistently poor

14 embryo quality up to that point on multiple

15 attempts, was there any attempt to see whether or

16 not the embryos could be put back earlier, let\'s

17 stay at the one cell stage or at the two cell stage

18 before this fragmentation occurred to divorce the

19 notion that there was an embryo problem versus the

20 ability of that particular patient\'s embryo to

21 survive in culture?

22 DR. LANZENDORF: The patient who got

23 pregnant, I believe but I can\'t say for certain she

24 had a ZIFT procedure. I mean, this patient was

25 hell-bent on getting pregnant and eery time she

76

1 came she was going to do something different to try

2 to improve her chances. So, we are talking about

3 three patients and I know I could look this up for

4 you in their records, but I feel pretty confident

5 that even those procedures would not have helped

6 them, and I believe that one had tried other

7 procedures.

8 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Murray and then Dr.

9 Mulligan.

10 DR. MURRAY: Thank you. Dr. Lanzendorf,

11 in your presentation the last point you made was a

12 kind of empirical claim with a moral punch line.

13 You said that most patients having to choose

14 between a donor egg and cytoplasmic transfer would

15 not be bothered with the fact that the child may

16 have genetic material from the mitochondria of the

17 egg donor. In ethics we are as intensely focused

18 on the text as scientists are focused on data. So,

19 it would be very helpful to know, if not now and

20 you could submit later, exactly what question the

21 patients were responding to and what information

22 they had been given about the significance and

23 risks of getting heteroplasmy for example.

24 DR. LANZENDORF: Well, before the two

25 pregnancies from Jacques Cohen\'s lab, we would talk

77

1 to the patients about what it would mean to have

2 mitochondria from somebody else, and that there

3 mitochondrial diseases and things like that.

4 Again, at that point we were more concerned about

5 transfer of nuclear material after being reassured

6 by a mitochondria person that mitochondria would

7 not be transferred, but we did always have it in

8 the consent form. Then after those pregnancies

9 became evident, we immediately amended our consent

10 form to talk about the two children who had been

11 born. I don\'t believe that we did any patients

12 after that because that was soon after we received

13 the letter.

14 DR. MURRAY: Did your mitochondrial expert

15 not inform you about the possibility of

16 heteroplasmy?

17 DR. LANZENDORF: No, he didn\'t. Well,

18 that is what we went to ask him about because one

19 of the things we were interested in was looking at

20 transferring mitochondria from one egg to the

21 other. We actually had a patient who came to us

22 also with a mitochondrial disease and wanted us to

23 do nuclear transfer for her so that her nucleus

24 could be put into an egg with normal cytoplasm.

25 So, we also explored with her being able to take

78

1 just a small amount of cytoplasm from a normal

2 donor egg, and we were assured from our person we

3 talked to that that much transfer of cytoplasm

4 would not affect the egg. It would not be passed

5 on to the progeny, and things like that.

6 DR. MURRAY: They were wrong.

7 DR. LANZENDORF: We initially approached

8 this as wanting it to be the mitochondria that

9 provided the benefit.

10 DR. MURRAY: So, you got incorrect\--

11 DR. LANZENDORF: Oh, yes.

12 DR. MURRAY: I don\'t know what the

13 protocol is. This is my first meeting with the

14 committee, but I would appreciate it if you could

15 give us at some point the actual question asked on

16 which you based this particular conclusion.

17 DR. LANZENDORF: Well, it was just sitting

18 down, talking to patients, consenting patients and,

19 you know, we do a weekly lecture, an egg class

20 where embryologists just sit around the table and

21 we present slides, similar to these, and show them

22 the kind of thing and, you know, patients

23 immediately jump up and, \"oh, I don\'t have to go to

24 a donor egg. I can possibly have my genetic

25 material in my child.\" Then you say, \"well, but

79

1 there is the chance of mitochondrial transfer.\" \"I

2 don\'t care about that.\" \"Well, it may change the

3 way the baby looks.\" You know, those are the

4 things that an infertile couple are thinking about.

5 DR. MURRAY: You have a mitochondrial

6 genome and a nuclear genome that comes into balance

7 in some way that we don\'t understand. So, really

8 part of the issue is not simply having somebody

9 else\'s mitochondria. The issue is whether that

10 mitochondrial DNA, in its interactions with that

11 woman\'s nuclear DNA, is going to draw you into a

12 new aspect of being that you would otherwise not

13 have had the possibility of encountering. So, I

14 think there is a complexity there.

15 DR. LANZENDORF: Right, and at that time

16 we did not understand the complexity so we would

17 most definitely change the way we talk to the

18 patient, get more information, explain to them more

19 about the role of mitochondria and things like

20 that. But I still believe that should this

21 procedure receive an IND, there are going to be

22 patients who will be lining up for it. We get

23 calls weekly from all over the world wanting the

24 procedure.

25 DR. SALOMON: Along the same line as the

80

1 ethics aspect of it, what does it mean that when

2 you went back to the couple that had the twins that

3 they just said, forget it; we don\'t want to know

4 anything. Again, I am not in your field but that

5 kind of concerns me that either they weren\'t really

6 prepared for the experimental nature of the

7 procedure or they don\'t really appreciate how

8 important it would be to test their children.

9 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

10 DR. SALOMON: Or, is this really such an

11 emotional issue and, of course, we know it is such

12 an emotional issue that this is going to be a very

13 difficult problem going forward in these studies,

14 that the parents really are not going to want you

15 to come near their kids.

16 DR. LANZENDORF: This is information that

17 I obtained from a medical director, and I can go

18 back to the medical director, or maybe you can go

19 back to the medical director and explain why you

20 think it is important, that these things occur and

21 maybe the couple can be brought back in and talked

22 to again. But when the letter went out and, of

23 course, when I found out about this meeting I asked

24 would she consider having her children evaluated.

25 He said, no, I just saw them last week and

81

1 mentioned it and they had no interest in it; they

2 couldn\'t care less if their kids have mitochondria

3 from somebody else. They are perfectly normal and

4 they are happy and, no, they don\'t want to be

5 bothered. So, whether it is the medical director or

6 not, making it a big enough issue\--I don\'t know.

7 DR. SALOMON: What I think this tells us

8 is it is just as an insight that as we go forward

9 in this area, part of what happens is educating the

10 whole process and how you do clinical trials in

11 cutting edge technologies.

12 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

13 DR. SALOMON: In a gene therapy trial, for

14 example, we couldn\'t expect any of our patients

15 afterwards to be surprised that we have come

16 forward to them and want to see whether or not\--I

17 mean, even though these are not minor issues, as

18 Jay is hand waving to me, in any clinical trial it

19 is really important of course, and I think it does

20 reflect part of what is going to happen to this

21 whole area as we get more used to thinking of it in

22 these terms.

23 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

24 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Sausville?

25 DR. SAUSVILLE: Actually, before my

82

1 question I just have a comment. I would simply

2 state that people have wildly different takes on

3 what their view of reasonability is in terms of

4 going after this. It is well documented in my own

5 field that in cancer susceptibility testing that

6 some people just don\'t want to know.

7 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

8 DR. SAUSVILLE: And one has to respect

9 that. Actually, the reason I was pushing down the

10 button is that I wanted to actually return a little

11 bit to the data that was in your presentation,

12 specifically the more recent experiments of Dr.

13 Brown.

14 DR. LANZENDORF: That was a small amount

15 of work that a clinical fellow did before he

16 departed. It has not been published. We thought

17 the numbers were too low to even publish. So, it

18 was just an effort of going through my files,

19 trying to find information that I thought\--

20 DR. SAUSVILLE: And I appreciate your

21 candor in showing us the preliminary nature of the

22 data, but I did want to try and go back to I guess

23 the three slides that talk about the difference

24 between controls and shams. So, I guess,

25 recognizing the numbers are small in terms of

83

1 statistics, the slides that have the fertilization

2 results, lead me through the clear evidence that

3 there is even a suggestion of an effect of the

4 cytoplasmic transfer as opposed to the sham

5 procedure. I am showing my ignorance in the field.

6 DR. LANZENDORF: Evidence that it helped?

7 DR. SAUSVILLE: Right.

8 DR. LANZENDORF: There was no evidence.

9 DR. SAUSVILLE: Right, so one has to be

10 concerned, therefore\--and maybe we will hear from

11 other speakers\--that the underpinnings either

12 historically or currently are somewhat

13 questionable.

14 DR. LANZENDORF: Right, I agree.

15 DR. SAUSVILLE: I wanted to make sure I

16 wasn\'t missing anything.

17 DR. SALOMON: I guess I get to be blunt.

18 Why would you do this? I don\'t get it.

19 DR. LANZENDORF: Why would we do the

20 procedure?

21 DR. SALOMON: Yes, I mean I don\'t see any

22 data, and it is very early in the day and this is

23 not my field, but so far from what you presented, I

24 wouldn\'t imagine doing this.

25 DR. LANZENDORF: That small study that I

84

1 presented at the end, again, was trying to

2 reproduce that first study with immature eggs.

3 When we are doing this procedure for patients, for

4 the patients that we did it wasn\'t an immature egg

5 issue. Again, when I said it didn\'t help, it was

6 not helping immature eggs. To me, there is no data

7 out there yet that shows that it does or does not

8 help mature eggs.

9 DR. SALOMON: What is the data that it

10 helps? I mean, you showed us data from the older

11 mothers. Right?

12 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

13 DR. SALOMON: And that, you said, didn\'t

14 show any difference. Right? Then the second thing

15 you showed us was the data from three women who had

16 had a history of non-successful implantation and

17 pregnancy. Right? I hope I am using the right

18 terms. One of those gave birth to the twins.

19 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

20 DR. SALOMON: Was that just a statistical

21 blip? Or, that one set of three, is that the data?

22 DR. LANZENDORF: That is why we need more

23 data. I mean, was it just her time? If it had

24 been a regular IVF she could have got pregnant.

25 So, it may have just been her time. I am not

85

1 saying that any of this supports that the procedure

2 actually does something.

3 DR. SCHON: One of the peculiarities of

4 the IVF field is that it is largely patient driven,

5 and if somebody put on the internet, for example,

6 that extracts of dentine were found to improve

7 pregnancy rates, I would venture to say that people

8 from all over the world would be calling and asking

9 for that procedure to be done. That is the history

10 of this field. Many things are done without any

11 evidence-based medicine traditionally used in other

12 studies or without any validation and that is why

13 we are here today. That is part of the nature of

14 this field from day one.

15 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Your comment about some

16 patients may go through nine cycles before being

17 successful. You described a particular pattern of

18 severe dysmorphology in embryonic development in

19 patients that you thought this might help. Is it

20 possible that patients who show significant

21 consistent dysmorphology in embryonic development

22 nonetheless become pregnant after six, seven,

23 eight, nine cycles?

24 DR. LANZENDORF: No, I would have to pull

25 out the stats.

86

1 DR. VAN BLERKOM: We just don\'t know the

2 answer?

3 DR. LANZENDORF: No. We can maybe find

4 out. There are programs out there with thousands

5 and thousands of patients and, you know, it might

6 be interesting to look. Of those patients who

7 finally got pregnant after their ninth attempt, did

8 they have a history of poor morphology.

9 DR. SCHON: I can answer that from my

10 experience. We had a patient from Israel who had

11 18 attempts at IVF in Israel and all failed. I

12 think this was about six years ago. Her 19th

13 attempt in our program and she had twins.

14 DR. LANZENDORF: It could have been the

15 program.

16 DR. SCHON: It could have been the program

17 or it could have been something else. That is the

18 point. When you have consistent failures, the

19 question is are the failures consistent with your

20 program or are they from other programs. So, are

21 the objective criteria that you use and someone

22 else uses the same?

23 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

24 DR. SCHON: That is really the problem

25 because if you are evaluating performance of

87

1 embryos in vitro from different programs, there is

2 no standard objective criteria. It is empirical.

3 So, what looks bad to you may not look so bad to

4 somebody else; and what looks terrible to you may

5 not look terrible to somebody else. And, that is

6 part of the problem in this field. It is

7 empirically driven.

8 DR. LANZENDORF: Right, but it could have

9 been the method of transfer that finally got her

10 pregnant, if the way they were transferring changed

11 over time or something like that.

12 DR. RAO: Maybe this will sound naive, but

13 in your opinion then what kinds of cases would you

14 actually look at for cytoplasm transfer?

15 DR. LANZENDORF: Cases where there is

16 documented poor morphology over repeated IVF

17 attempts, where the patient was younger than 40

18 years of age is what I think should be looked at.

19 One of the reasons we included the 40 and over in

20 the study is because many of the patients who are

21 trying to achieve a pregnancy are of that age

22 group, and you could not convince them that you

23 didn\'t think it would work for them. We have done

24 this in eight patients. Still we have patients who

25 want to do it even though we have shown that, but I

88

1 think we need to stop focusing on that age group.

2 DR. RAO: Let me extend that, poor

3 morphology in a young age group, where you mature

4 the eggs in culture?

5 DR. LANZENDORF: No, in vivo.

6 DR. RAO: In vivo, and you will then

7 select those eggs and look at those which have poor

8 morphology.

9 DR. LANZENDORF: You do the cytoplasm

10 procedure on all of the eggs at the time of

11 fertilization.

12 DR. RAO: You just do it on all and then

13 just pick the best.

14 DR. LANZENDORF: Yes, and on the day of

15 transfer, what we typically do with any patient is

16 we decide how many will be transferred, and then

17 transfer the ones with the best morphology.

18 DR. MULLIGAN: I actually have a different

19 question but just in response to his point, I am

20 still missing the line of reasoning for the context

21 in which you say that this might be the most

22 useful. I mean, you said that basically there is

23 really no data out there, yet when you are asked,

24 well, what specific context would you think this

25 would be most useful in, is that completely

89

1 independent of the fact that there is no data?

2 DR. LANZENDORF: That is my hypothesis.

3 DR. MULLIGAN: And the hypothesis is that

4 ooplasm could be useful but you would agree that

5 there is no data?

6 DR. LANZENDORF: I agree.

7 DR. MULLIGAN: Just scientifically, I find

8 it a little odd that that 1990 study just kind of

9 disappeared. Does anyone know what happened to the

10 people who did this? That is, did they do this and

11 then have a train wreck or something?

12 DR. LANZENDORF: Dr. Flood is practicing

13 IVF in Virginia Beach, down the street from us. I

14 could try to talk to her. Three of the other

15 people are not in this country. Gary Hodgins is

16 retired for medical reasons.

17 DR. MULLIGAN: You know, scientifically,

18 usually when something like this does happen there

19 is a paper and you could look at something and say

20 that is very interesting. If you see no report in

21 the next four or five years, certainly in my field,

22 it means something. So, I am just curious. It

23 would probably be very useful to try to track these

24 people and see. Can you do literature searches?

25 Did they eve publish anything on this?

90

1 DR. LANZENDORF: No, I know they didn\'t.

2 I was doing my post doc somewhere else so I had

3 very little information.

4 DR. VAN BLERKOM: These were probably

5 clinical fellows doing a paper for clinical

6 fellowship.

7 DR. LANZENDORF: Right.

8 DR. VAN BLERKOM: But it was preceded in

9 the \'80s and \'70s by work in mice and other

10 species, by the way, and it was really designed in

11 the mouse to look at cell cycle regulation, cell

12 cycle checks which led to the discovery of factors

13 involved in the maturation of their egg and their

14 timing. So, these guys just looked at it in the

15 monkey, again looking for whether or not

16 cytoplasmic factors from one stage would induce

17 maturation or assist maturation in other eggs.

18 That is all. There is a precedent for this type of

19 work in mouse and lots of other invertebrates.

20 DR. MULLIGAN: At that point, was there

21 impact upon the work?

22 DR. VAN BLERKOM: No.

23 DR. MULLIGAN: No one really read the

24 paper or thought it was interesting?

25 DR. VAN BLERKOM: No, there was no point

91

1 to it. I mean, it was just a confirmation that as

2 in the mouse, as in starfish, as in sea urchins

3 there are factors in the cytoplasm that are

4 spatially and temporally distinct and are involved

5 in miotic maturation of the egg, period.

6 DR. SALOMON: I was told by Gail that

7 there is someone in the audience that wanted to

8 make a comment. If so, I didn\'t want to exclude

9 them. If you could please identify yourself?

10 DR. WILLADSEN: I am Steen Willadsen. I

11 work as a consultant at St. Barnabas, the Institute

12 of Reproductive Medicine and Science. It was

13 actually something else I wanted to comment on.

14 It was the statement from, I think,

15 Jonathan Van Blerkom that the IVF work is patient

16 driven. I don\'t basically disagree with that. So

17 is cancer treatment. But he then went on to say

18 that all sorts of things were being offered that

19 had no scientific background, or at least suggested

20 that. I would disagree with that. I would

21 disagree that all sorts of things are being

22 offered. I don\'t think there are that many things

23 that are being offered.

24 Since I have the microphone, I think I

25 should say also that the people on the committee

92

1 are very much concerned about how clinical trials

2 should be conducted. Therefore, you focus on

3 whether all the things are in place for that when

4 you hear about research. Therefore, it sounds

5 strange and looks like a big jump, here we go from

6 experiments with monkeys and then nine years later,

7 or whenever it is, suddenly it happens in humans

8 and looks to you as if the duck hasn\'t been moving,

9 so to speak, but in fact there has been a lot of

10 paddling going on. The first mammalian cloning

11 experiments were successful were in 1984 or 1985

12 and, yet, Dolly was in 1996 and in between it

13 looked like it had kind of gone dead. Not at all.

14 There was plenty of work going on, but that doesn\'t

15 mean that it would be worth publishing. It might

16 be for you because you are interested in the whole

17 process of how this is controlled; what steps

18 should be taken from the administrative level. But

19 that is not how research is done in basic

20 embryology. Thank you.

21 DR. SALOMON: Thank you. Well, you have

22 to understand we look forward and we ask our

23 questions to discover what has been going on that

24 has not been published, as well as what has been

25 published. The question, if you remember, that was

93

1 asked was what happened between 1990 and 1997 and

2 if there were things going on that weren\'t

3 published that were pertinent, that is the time to

4 hear about them. We certainly understand the fact

5 that much goes on that doesn\'t come to the public.

6 But now when you want to step up and start doing

7 clinical trials, it is time to think about those

8 things.

9 I want to thank Dr. Lanzendorf. You have

10 shouldered a bigger responsibility\--

11 DR. LANZENDORF: Thank you.

12 DR. SALOMON: Oh, I am sorry, there is

13 someone else from the audience.

14 DR. MADSEN: I Pamela Madsen. I am the

15 executive director of the American Infertility

16 Association and I do represent the patients, and I

17 am a former patient and a former infertile person.

18 It is an echo but I decided the echo

19 should come from the patient organization in

20 response to the gentleman from St. Barnabas. Yes,

21 it is patient driven. I was going to use the exact

22 same model of the cancer patient who doesn\'t have

23 hope. These patients, you have to be clear, are

24 looking for certain technologies. There isn\'t

25 anything else being offered to them and you really

94

1 need to be clear about that. These patient groups

2 are looking for these technologies. IVF is not

3 working for them and their only other hope, if they

4 want to experience a pregnancy, is donor egg. That

5 is all they have and you need to be clear about

6 that.

7 You also really need to be clear that when

8 you are looking at small data sets, and I am not a

9 clinician, not a doctor or a scientist so forgive

10 me, these are very small data sets because you have

11 stopped the research and, as patients, we want to

12 see the research. We want there to be bigger data

13 sets, and there are lots of patients who are very

14 eager to have a chance at this research. We need

15 to continue and I thought you should hear that

16 again from a patient as well as the clinicians.

17 Thank you.

18 DR. SALOMON: I appreciate that.

19 Certainly, one of the things I want to reiterate

20 here is that anyone who is here today, part of your

21 responsibility is to make sure that we are being

22 appropriately sensitive to all the public

23 stakeholders in this area as we venture into this

24 conversation, both to have a sense of how it is

25 practiced in the clinical field\--you know, I said

95

1 in your experience do you feel comfortable and your

2 answer was, yes, you do. That is the kind of thing

3 that we need to hear and be reassured on, and the

4 same thing from patient advocacy groups and

5 research advocacy groups. If you feel like we have

6 veered off a line that is sensitive to the state of

7 this field, then it is very appropriate to get up

8 and remind us.

9 Again, thank you very much, Dr.

10 Lanzendorf. That was excellent; a good start. We

11 will take now a ten-minute break and start again.

12 \[Brief recess\]

13 DR. SALOMON: We can get started. Before

14 we go on with the regular scheduled presentations,

15 it is a special pleasure to introduce Kathy Zoon,

16 who is\--I know I will blow this\--the director of

17 CBER. My only concern was not to promote her high

18 enough!

19 DR. ZOON: Dan, thank you and the

20 committee very much for giving me an opportunity to

21 come here today. I apologize that I couldn\'t be

22 here this morning to speak to you but we were

23 working on some budget issues at FDA. I know you

24 can understand that.

25 I would like, in a few minutes, to give

96

1 the committee and the interested parties in the

2 audience an update on CBER\'s proposal for a new

3 office at the Center for Biologics. This new

4 office has the proposed title of the Office of

5 Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products, something

6 very close to the heart of this committee. One

7 might ask why is CBER doing this. CBER is doing

8 this because there are many issues regarding

9 tissues and the evolution of cell and cell

10 therapies and gene therapies that we see as an

11 increasing and expanding growth area for our

12 Center. Rather than reacting when it gets ahead of

13 us, CBER has always taken the position of being

14 proactive, trying to establish an organizational

15 structure and framework so that we can be ready to

16 deal with tissue-engineered products, regular

17 cellular products, banked human tissues, repro

18 tissues and, of course, the topic of today,

19 assisted reproductive tissues.

20 We have gotten the go-ahead from Deputy

21 Commissioner Crawford and Secretary Thompson to

22 proceed on this office, and we are very much

23 engaging in the communities of all affected people,

24 especially our committee who has had to deal with

25 so many issues to get your feedback and advice

97

1 because we want to do this right. We want to make

2 sure that we have as much input when we go in to

3 finalizing the structure and functions of this

4 office to do the very best job we can. We

5 recognize that this will be an evolution for all of

6 us because we are still evolving with our tissue

7 regulations as rules, as well as the sciences

8 surrounding cellular therapies and tissue

9 engineering, and we very much understand that but

10 we believe it is time to be prepared and move

11 forward and get ready for this area.

12 So, my plea at this point is, please,

13 provide the advice; certainly, those in the

14 audience as well that have an interest in this

15 area. We are very much interested in hearing from

16 you. There are two e-mail addresses for those who

17 might wish to do it through e-mail. It is

18 zoon@CBER.FDA.gov. Then, Sherry Lard who is the

19 associate for quality assurance and ombudsman at

20 FDA is also taking comments in case people prefer

21 to remain anonymous because that is important. Her

22 e-mail address is lard@CBER.FDA.gov. If you prefer

23 not to e-mail and you prefer to call, the numbers

24 are on the HHS directory off the web site, if you

25 want to find any of us.

98

1 We are very happy and very pleased that

2 this committee would deliberate and think about

3 this, and I will be looking forward. The time line

4 for this new office, we hope to have as many

5 comments as possible by the end of May. We would

6 like to finalize the structure and functional

7 statements probably in June, and then work on the

8 issues that are administrative to moving the office

9 forward, and are looking forward to an

10 implementation date of October 1, which is the

11 beginning of the fiscal year. So, just to give you

12 a sense of the dynamics and the organization. It

13 is a goal. We are hoping that we can achieve this

14 goal and that is where we are focused on.

15 So, I am very happy to have the

16 opportunity today to be here and present this

17 proposal to you, as well as receive your feedback.

18 Thank you.

19 DR. SALOMON: Thank you very much, Dr.

20 Zoon. Tomorrow when we have some time because I

21 see today as being very busy, we will try and find

22 some time as a group to discuss this just as an

23 initial thing, because I am interested in some

24 thoughts that everyone has. That is not to mean

25 that anything else can\'t go on informally or

99

1 formally otherwise.

2 Just one question, it is a pretty big

3 deal, how often do you guys make new offices like

4 this?

5 DR. ZOON: We sometimes create new

6 offices. In fact, over the past probably three

7 years we have elevated the Division of

8 Biostatistics and Epidemiology, which is

9 responsible for our statistical reviews at the

10 Center as well as for overseeing adverse events, we

11 have elevated that office, led by Dr. Susan

12 Ellenberg, to an office level. Most recently, we

13 broke out our information technology group, which

14 was an office under an office, as a separate

15 office. This one is more complicated because it

16 takes the experiences in both the Office of

17 Therapeutics that is relevant and the Office of

18 Blood that had a lot of the tissue programs and

19 tissue activities, and moving people together as

20 appropriate. So, this is a much bigger

21 reorganization, more complex. The last big one we

22 did was in 1993.

23 DR. SALOMON: That is more what I was

24 thinking. I mean, my initial response is that this

25 is a remarkable recognition of where this field has

100

1 gone in the last five to ten years. We are talking

2 now about such a myriad of studies going from

3 neural stem cells to xenotransplantation to islet

4 transplantation to gene therapy of various sorts,

5 all of which have been major touchstones for public

6 comment and regulatory concerns. So, I think this

7 is a really big deal and we appreciate the

8 opportunity to hear about it and also to give you

9 some input constructively while it is being

10 developed. Thank you, Dr. Zoon.

11 It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Jacques

12 Cohen, from the Institute for Reproductive Medicine

13 and Science of St. Barnabas, and to get back to

14 today\'s topic of ooplasm transfer. Dr. Cohen?

15 Ooplasm Transfer

16 DR. COHEN: Good morning. Thank you, Mr.

17 Chairman. Thank you for your kind invitation.

18 For my presentation I will follow or try

19 to follow the guidelines for questions that the

20 BRMAC has asked in this document that I found in my

21 folder. But I will deviate from it now and then.

22 First of all, I would like to acknowledge

23 three individuals, two of them are here, that have

24 been crucial for this work, Steen Willadsen who,

25 about twelve years ago or so, suggested that there

101

1 could be potential clinical applications for

2 cytoplasmic replacement or ooplasmic

3 transplantation; Carol Brenner who has done a lot

4 of the molecular biology, microgenetics of this

5 work, together with Jason Barret; and Henry Malter

6 who has been involved in the last three or four

7 years.

8 I would like to backtrack a little bit

9 after Susan Lanzendorf\'s presentation and, first of

10 all, look at all the different oocyte deficits that

11 exist. The most important one is aneuploidy.

12 Aneuploidy is extremely common in early human

13 embryos and oocytes, is highly correlated with

14 maternal age, as I will show you. It is the most

15 common problem in our field.

16 Chromosome breakage is not that

17 well-known, not that well studied but is also very

18 common. I am not just thinking about the risk of

19 transmitting of translocations but also about

20 spontaneous chromosome breakage that occurs in

21 oocytes and embryos.

22 Gene dysfunction is being studied,

23 particularly now that tools are being made

24 available.

25 But we have to keep in mind a couple of

102

1 things here. When we study these phenomena there

2 are a couple of things that are important to know.

3 First of all, there is no government funding. So,

4 it is all paid out of the clinical work. Secondly,

5 we can only study these phenomena in single cells

6 because we have really only single cells available

7 to us. Thirdly, genomic activation is delayed.

8 But that, I mean the finding that the early human

9 embryo is really an egg that is on automatic. It

10 is not activated yet. Expression by the new genome

11 hasn\'t occurred yet. In the human it is considered

12 to occur between four to eight cell stages, three

13 days after fertilization. This is important

14 because when we talk about ooplasmic

15 transplantation we truly try to affect the period

16 that occurs before genomic activation.

17 Here is the correlation between aneuploidy

18 and implantation. On the horizontal axis you see

19 maternal age. This finding is pretty old now.

20 This was based on doing fluorescence in situ

21 hybridization in embryos, in embryos that were

22 biopsied and the single cells taken out. This was

23 done by Munne and coworkers many years ago now. At

24 that time, they were only able to do two or three

25 chromosome probes, molecular probes to assess

103

1 chromosome. So, the rate of aneuploidy is pretty

2 clear and it seemed to us, and many others, that

3 this correlation is so apparent that you couldn\'t

4 do anything with ooplasm or cytoplasm because in

5 the mature egg aneuploidy was already present,

6 particularly correlated with maternal age, and that

7 problem was so obvious that not much else could be

8 done.

9 But a lot of data has been gathered since

10 this. Particularly what has been done is to do

11 embryo biopsy, take a cell out at the four to eight

12 cell stage. If you look at the implantation rate

13 here, in the green bars and, again, on the

14 horizontal axis you see the maternal age here, you

15 can see that implantation\--which is defined as one

16 embryo being transferred giving fetal heart beat,

17 the implantation rate diminishes significantly with

18 maternal age.

19 What you see in the orange bars is what

20 happens or will happen if one does aneuploidy

21 testing. It shows that in the older age groups you

22 will get an increase in implantation because

23 embryos that are affected by aneuploidy are now

24 selected out. They have been diagnosed. You can

25 take those triploid or trisomic or monosomic

104

1 embryos out and put them aside so that you only

2 transfer diploid embryos.

3 The thing though is that this is not a

4 straight line. What we had really hoped is that we

5 would have a very high rate of success regardless

6 of age per embryo. That is not the case. If you

7 use egg donors and you put embryos back in women of

8 advanced maternal age, you will find that this is a

9 straight line. So, if you use eggs and embryos

10 that come from eggs from donors that are younger

11 than 31, younger than 30 you will find that the

12 recipient now behaves like a young woman.

13 So, what is different here is that it is

14 not just the aneuploidy that is causing this

15 difference, but also there is this huge discrepancy

16 still that must be related to other causes, other

17 anomalies that are present in the egg and,

18 therefore, in the embryo that should be studied.

19 So, the question, and the question is

20 raised very well by FDA, is there evidence of an

21 ooplasmic deficit? Dr. Lanzendorf mentioned

22 already fragments. These are blebs that are

23 produced by the embryos. Both Jonathan Van Blerkom

24 and our group have described a number of different

25 types of fragmentation that have probably different

105

1 origins and causes.

2 The lower panel basically shows what you

3 see in the upper panel but now the fragments are

4 highlighted. These fragments in this case, here,

5 occur at a relatively low incidence but you can

6 score this. Trained embryologists are able to

7 score this quite well, and proficiency tests have

8 to be in place to make sure that this is done

9 reliably.

10 There are different fragmentation types.

11 Some of them are benign and some of them are

12 detrimental. All depend on the type of

13 fragmentation and the amount of fragments that are

14 present. There are some as well that may not be

15 cytoplasmic in origin, for example, there is

16 multinucleation that can occur in cells of early

17 embryos. All these are scored by embryologists.

18 If we look at this fragmentation

19 phenomenon, here, again, on the horizontal axis you

20 see how many fragments there are in an embryo and

21 that is scored from zero to 100. One hundred means

22 that there is not a single cell left; all the cells

23 are now fragmented. Zero means there is not a

24 single fragment that is seen. Then, there are

25 scores in between.

106

1 Clinically, we know that you can get

2 fragmentation up to 40 percent, like here, and you

3 can still get maybe an occasional embryo that is

4 viable but all the viability is here, on the left.

5 When we looked at gene expression in spare embryos

6 that are normal; they have been put aside and

7 patients have consented to this research, when we

8 look in these embryos, we are finding now that

9 certain genes are highly correlated with these

10 morphologic phenomena and are related to the number

11 of transcripts of certain genes that are present in

12 the cytoplasm of the oocyte and are present in the

13 cytoplasm of the early embryo.

14 You can see here, in this particular gene,

15 there is a very clear correlation and a very badly,

16 morphologically poor embryo is here, on the right,

17 have more transcripts of this gene in the cells.

18 There were a couple of genes that were

19 looked at. Here is another one that is correlated

20 in a different way which fits probably in the

21 hypothesis that fragmentation doesn\'t have a single

22 course. It shows though that there is a clear

23 basis, at least looking at fragmentation, that this

24 goes back to the egg and that the problems are

25 present in the oocyte.

107

1 Another gene that has been studied for

2 many years now by Dr. Warner, in Boston, is the

3 gene that she called the pre-implantation

4 development gene. This gene phenotypically shows

5 high correlation with speed of development of early

6 embryos. When we looked in the human we could

7 basically\--and this is very well known, you can see

8 all these different speeds of development,

9 development stages when you look at static times.

10 In our data base we separated patients

11 that had different developmental stages where

12 embryos may be eight-cell at one point and where

13 sibling embryos would be seven cells or four cells.

14 We took all those patients separately and we found

15 1360 patients that had very uniform rates of

16 development. You can see here if we look at fetal

17 heart beat projected from single embryos that there

18 is a highly significant difference in implantation

19 rate.

20 Similar to the model in the mouse, in the

21 mouse you have fast embryos and you have slow

22 embryos. The fast embryos implant at a very high

23 frequency and the slow embryos can implant, it is

24 not an absolute phenomenon, but they implant at a

25 much lower frequency. This is under the control of

108

1 ooplasm, like in the mouse.

2 In the mouse the gene product is the Qa-2

3 protein and if it binds to the membrane the embryos

4 will become fast embryos and you get good

5 development, and if the protein is absent you get

6 slow embryos, but you can get implantation but at a

7 lower frequency.

8 Other cytoplasmic factors have been looked

9 at. Transports have been looked at and now, with

10 the availability of microarrays and other

11 technologies, we hope that even though we are only

12 using single cells for these analyses that we can

13 correlate some of the expressions of these genes

14 with viability of the embryo.

15 Here is an example. This is Mad2, which

16 is a spindle regulation factor. We have looked at

17 Mad2 and Bob1 and we have found\--I apologize for

18 the graph, it is pretty unclear, but the maternal

19 age is again on the horizontal axis and younger

20 women who had many transcripts present, a

21 significantly lower number in all the women.

22 Again, this was measured in the cytoplasm.

23 For this meeting, for the purpose of

24 studying ooplasmic transplantation, is the issue of

25 mitochondria genes. We have been interested in

109

1 this for quite a long time. Mitochondrial genome

2 is, and I am sure Dr. Shoubridge will talk about

3 this later in great detail, is a relatively simple

4 conserved genome, 37 genes. On the top of it, at

5 least in this picture, there is an area that has

6 high rates of polymorphisms, the hypervariable

7 area. Adjacent to it is the replication control

8 region.

9 We have looked at oocytes, in the yellow

10 bars, and embryos, in the orange bars, and compared

11 mitochondrial DNA rearrangements. I have to

12 mention that these are not potentially normal

13 materials because these cells are derived from eggs

14 that do not fertilize or from eggs that do not

15 mature or abnormally fertilize, and embryos that

16 develop so abnormally that they cannot be frozen or

17 transferred. So, this is all from spare material.

18 For obvious reasons, it is very hard to obtain

19 appropriate control groups for some of these

20 studies.

21 We found 23 novel rearrangements, and the

22 frequency rate was astoundingly high. So,

23 mitochondrial DNA rearrangements occur very

24 frequently in oocytes; significantly less

25 frequently in embryos. It has been postulated that

110

1 it is very likely that there is a block in place

2 that selects abnormal mitochondria in a way that

3 the corresponding cell doesn\'t continue to develop.

4 You can see that fertilization block here. The

5 spare embryos have less rearrangements than the

6 oocytes, suggesting that there is a bottleneck, a

7 sieve in place.

8 We have also looked at single base pair

9 mutation at 414 logs. This was a publication from

10 Sherver in, I think, 1999, who showed, and I am

11 sure the mitochondria experts here may not

12 necessarily agree with that work, but showed that

13 in the natural population this mutation had a high

14 correlation with aging.

15 So, we were interested to look at this.

16 It was quite simple to study, to look at this

17 particular mutation in spare human egg and embryo

18 material, again, with the purpose of identifying

19 cytoplasmic factors that were involved in the

20 formation of a healthy embryo. We found that this

21 single base pair mutation was fairly frequently

22 present in human oocytes that were derived from

23 women that were older, 37 to 42 years of age, and

24 significantly less present in women that were

25 younger.

111

1 So, when we look at the clinical

2 rationale, there is a knowledge base but it is not

3 necessarily specific for ooplasmic defects. Of

4 course, we know very little about ooplasmic

5 defects. So, a rationale for studying potential

6 treatments for each defect does not exist.

7 The question is, and this came up actually

8 earlier this morning, is there a rationale at all

9 to do ooplasmic transplantation? Well, that is

10 saying that all ooplasms are the same. Well, they

11 are not. They are all different. So, I think that

12 is the rationale. Not all levels of transcripts,

13 not all proteins and not all mitochondria are the

14 same in the ooplasm of different eggs.

15 What animal experimentation has been done,

16 particularly with the interest of cytoplasmic

17 transplantation? There is a whole body of

18 research, and a lot of this work was done not

19 keeping in mind that there was an interest in doing

20 ooplasmic transplantation clinically, and I think

21 Jonathan Van Blerkom said that. This work was done

22 because there were other issues that needed to be

23 studied, genetic interest in early development.

24 One of the papers not mentioned before is

25 some interesting work done by Muggleton-Harris in

112

1 England, in the \'80s, and they looked at mice that

2 had what is called a two-cell block. These are

3 mice that when you culture oocytes, zygotes in

4 vitro, the embryos will arrest. You can change the

5 environment but they will not develop further. By

6 taking two-cell embryos from other strains of mice

7 that do not have this two-cell block, it was

8 possible by transferring cytoplasm to move the

9 embryos that were blocked through the block. I

10 think that has been a pretty good model for this

11 work. However, this was done, of course, after

12 fertilization and certainly is something that could

13 be considered.

14 Many cytoplasmic replacement studies have

15 been done from the early \'80s onwards, particularly

16 Azim Surani\'s group who looked at many different

17 kinds of combinations of cytoplasm and cells with

18 and without enucleation, different sizes, different

19 techniques. Cytoplasm transfer has been studied in

20 the mouse and in the monkey, and I will mention the

21 work of Larry Smith, in Quebec, in Canada, who has

22 created hundreds of mice from experiments that are

23 very similar to the cytoplasmic transplantation

24 model in the human. That work was done in 1992 and

25 is continuing, hundreds of mice over many different

113

1 generations.

2 Then there is in vitro work done

3 originally by Doug Waldenson, in Atlanta, and his

4 work involves mixing mitochondria of different

5 origins in the same cell and then studying cell

6 function.

7 In Larry Smith\'s lab in Quebec,

8 heteroplasmic mice have been produced, as I said.

9 These are healthy, normal mice from karyoplasm and

10 cytoplasm transfer. Karyoplasm is part of the cell

11 that contains a nucleus and contains a membrane.

12 Cytoplasm is also part of a cell that is surrounded

13 by a membrane. They combined these in many

14 different ways between inbred mouse strains with

15 differing mitochondrial backgrounds because they

16 are interested, like many others, in mitochondrial

17 inheritance. Many of these animals have been

18 produced over 15 generations apparently without

19 developmental type problems.

20 We did an experiment in 1995-95. It was

21 published in 1996 by Levron and coworkers where we

22 looked at cytoplasmic transfer in mouse zygotes and

23 mouse eggs, using F1 hybrids. We did many

24 different kinds of combinations and found that in

25 most combinations it did not really affect

114

1 development except when very large amounts of

2 cytoplasm were fused back into the recipient cells.

3 We found in one scenario a significantly improved

4 situation where zygote and egg cytoplasm was

5 combined.

6 The hybrid experiments have been done,

7 which I mentioned before, for creation of cell

8 hybrids with disparate nuclei and mitochondrial

9 makeup. It has been done across species and across

10 genes even. Normal mitochondrial function has been

11 obtained in many scenarios. The only scenarios

12 that in hybrids, as well as in mouse cytoplasm,

13 karyoplasm studies that are not potentially normal

14 have always been obtained across species or

15 subspecies. Of course, those experiments are not

16 really models for mixing mitochondria of two

17 completely outbred individuals.

18 We have done work in the last few years

19 that is similar to that of Larry Smith\'s laboratory

20 but with the aim of looking at the mice in more

21 detail and to see how fertile they are, for

22 instance. So, here we take a zygote from one F1

23 hybrid and then mix the karyoplasm containing the

24 zygote nuclei with the cytoplasm of another zygote.

25 It is a pretty small group here, 12 mice,

115

1 F1 hybrids. In those there were no apparent

2 problems. The first generation is now 30 months

3 old. We have done one more generation of 13

4 individuals that we just keep around to look at and

5 until now there have been no apparent problems.

6 One of the problems with cytoplasmic

7 transfer work, the ooplasmic transportation work in

8 the human is the use of ICSI, intercytoplasmic

9 sperm injection. It is basically taking a very

10 sharp needle and go into the membrane of the

11 oocyte. That has not been easy in animals, believe

12 it or not, but it works well in the human, very

13 well. The human egg is very forgiving but it

14 doesn\'t work well at all in other species. In the

15 mouse it has taken a couple of tricks to make it

16 work, and that has only happened in the last few

17 years. So, we think that we have a better model

18 tentatively to compare what is done in the human,

19 and to do this in the mouse. I am not saying that

20 the mouse is the best model for these studies but

21 it has all sorts of advantages. It is genetically

22 incredibly well studied. It has a very fast

23 reproductive cycle, etc. Here you see some embryos

24 that have a good survival rate, 90 percent or

25 better, from these experiments.

116

1 So, what is the clinical experience? The

2 first time we approached the internal review board

3 at St. Barnabas was sometime in 1995. The first

4 experimental clinical procedures were done in 1996.

5 When first results were obtained and also when we

6 found the first indication of benign heteroplasmy

7 and this was in placenta and in fetal cord blood of

8 two of the babies, we reported this to the IRB and,

9 of course, had to inform our patients. I think the

10 question came up before, do you tell your patients

11 about heteroplasmy? Well, you can only tell them

12 about it when you find it. So, it was only found

13 in 1999, and this is from this time onwards when it

14 was incorporated in the consent procedure.

15 Then last year, after a rash of bad

16 publicity, we went back to the internal review

17 board but this was also at the time that the FDA

18 sent us a letter. So, this second review is

19 basically not going forward because we were asked

20 to hold off until further resolution.

21 How do we do this clinical? Well, we made

22 the choice to go for the mature oocyte and not the

23 immature oocyte. We made the choice for the mature

24 oocyte because there is incredible experience with

25 IVF as well as intercytoplasmic sperm injection

117

1 manipulating these eggs. These are small cells

2 that are genetically similar to the egg and these

3 can be removed microsurgically. There is

4 experience with injecting sperm from male factor

5 infertility patients. Forty percent of our

6 patients have male factor infertility, possibly

7 more. So, there are more than 100,000 babies born

8 worldwide from this ICSI procedure.

9 So, we felt that what was a better

10 approach possibly than using the more classical

11 micromanipulation procedures that involve, for

12 instance, the formation of cytoblasts and

13 karyoblasts and then fusion, which we thought was

14 maybe just a little too much. So, we took

15 cytoplasmic transfer using ICSI as a model. There

16 are advantages to that and disadvantages. You

17 could do this also at the time the zygote is formed

18 and the two-cell is formed. This has been a

19 clinical pilot experiment we chose. For the first

20 lot of patients we chose the mature egg.

21 The procedure was already shown by Dr.

22 Lanzendorf but basically you pick up a sperm and

23 then go into the donor egg. I would like to point

24 out here that the polar body, right next to it\--the

25 human egg is very asymmetric. It is polarized, and

118

1 the spindle that obviously under light microscopy

2 and also in this cartoon is not visible, is located

3 very close to the polar body. So, the idea is that

4 we should not transfer chromosomes from the polar

5 body. Therefore, we keep the polar body as far as

6 possible away from the area where we select our

7 cytoplasm from. Then, when cytoplasm has been

8 absorbed in the needle, it is immediately deposited

9 into a recipient egg.

10 Pictures don\'t tell you very much because

11 they are static, but here is the sperm cell and

12 then going into the donor egg, here is the donor

13 egg. The polar body cytoplasm of the sperm is now

14 here, and then is deposited into a mature recipient

15 egg. When we do this we make videos so that we can

16 see that cytoplasm has been transferred, but also

17 in the usual circumstances the cytoplasm between

18 oocytes is very different, has a different

19 consistency, different refraction and, therefore,

20 you can usually immediately see the amount that is

21 transferred and injected, and that is highlighted

22 here.

23 We have done 28 patients so far. Five had

24 repeated cycles. three of those became pregnant

25 and had a baby the first time and challenged their

119

1 luck and came back again. They were all egg

2 donation candidates.

3 Now, I need to say something about this.

4 First of all, there are a lot more patients that

5 want to be candidates but our feeling and also we

6 agreed that we should do these patients in-house

7 because there are tremendous differences in

8 outcomes, clinical outcomes between programs. So,

9 if a patient would come that has ten failed cycles

10 elsewhere, it is not at all unlikely that she could

11 become pregnant in our program or in another

12 program if she switched programs because laboratory

13 procedures and clinical procedures are very

14 different from program to program. So, we felt

15 that at least there should be a couple of cycles

16 done by our own program if the patient came from

17 elsewhere.

18 The average number of previous cycles in

19 these patients is well over four. These patients

20 have recurrent implantation failure. So, they come

21 in. They do not become pregnant. We put multiple

22 embryos back. They have a good response to

23 follicular stimulation so they make a lot of eggs

24 but they do not become pregnant. They have normal

25 fertilization rates. They also all had recurrent

120

1 poor embryo morphology. However, there was one

2 exception to that. There was one patient that had

3 normal fertilization but zygote block. The zygotes

4 basically fall apart in fragments and other zygotes

5 would never even do that. They would just stay.

6 Fertilized as they are, they would never divide.

7 So, one of the 28 patients did not have poor embryo

8 morphology. She simply did not have developing

9 embryos.

10 A number of these patients were male

11 factor patients and it is important to realize that

12 when you get poor embryo development, some of that

13 may be caused by the male factor. The sperm may be

14 the cause of abnormal development, particularly

15 because the sperm brings in the centriole that is

16 obviously crucial for division. The centriole in

17 the human is inherited through the maternal line.

18 It is possible, and being suggested by Jonathan Van

19 Blerkom that men that have abnormal centriole

20 function. Certainly, we have found that in some

21 subsets of men there are high rates of mosaicism,

22 indicating that there are problems with division

23 and, therefore, their infertility is correlated

24 with embryonic failure.

25 When I say nine male factors, it really

121

1 means that they had abnormal semen. There could

2 have been other male factors as well with normal

3 semen. There can be patients that have normal

4 sperm but they can still be infertile. Five of

5 these patients had repeated miscarriages. So, five

6 of them had been implanted before but always

7 miscarried.

8 So, we did 33 attempts. Two did not have

9 viable embryos for transfer; 21 transfers and 13

10 clinical pregnancies. There were more clinical

11 pregnancies from this patient group, and the reason

12 for that is that in order to do the cytoplasmic

13 transfer we only used ten percent or so of the

14 cytoplasm of a donor egg. So, we actually use

15 donor eggs several times. We go into the same

16 donor egg of two times. Twice. We go in there

17 twice, and sometimes more if only a few donor eggs

18 are availability. Most donors are good stimulators

19 so they will have a good response to follicular

20 stimulation and will make a lot of eggs. So, the

21 procedure yields a lot of eggs that are not used.

22 What we offer to our patients is that those eggs

23 are injected by sperm from the male partner and

24 that embryos resulting from this are frozen for

25 later use. So, it is not only cytoplasmic transfer

122

1 procedure, it is also an egg donation cycle. There

2 are patients that don\'t come back for another

3 attempt of ooplasmic transplantation or they are

4 discouraged to do that, and then they come back for

5 frozen embryos from the donor eggs that were

6 injected with the sperm from the husbands.

7 So, the data I am showing here is clean

8 data. These are pregnancies that occurred from

9 transferring embryos that were derived from

10 ooplasmic transplantation. But if the patients

11 have failed, some of them may have another chance

12 using the frozen embryos.

13 There was a firs trimester miscarriage.

14 There was an XO pregnancy. Obviously, these are

15 fairly common, the single most common chromosomal

16 anomaly in early pregnancy. This happened at the

17 end of \'98. A few months later we had a twin

18 pregnancy and one of the fetuses on amnio was

19 diagnosed as XO as well. We published this a few

20 years ago.

21 With that information, we returned to the

22 internal review board to let other patients that

23 are undergoing this experimental protocol know that

24 this may be a potential issue. If you look at the

25 statistics, many statisticians have told me that

123

1 there may be an issue or there may not be an issue.

2 On twin was born and also a quadruplet was

3 born. This is one of two patients where there was

4 a very clear improvement in embryo morphology.

5 However, we understand that we are so biased as

6 embryologists that maybe we were imagining some of

7 this. So, four embryos were transferred. Of

8 course, in that respect we should have only

9 transferred two or so. This was a patient who had

10 five previous attempts and always had very poor

11 embryos and now, suddenly, the embryos looked much

12 better. In spite of our advice in the consent form

13 that were given to her at the time of these

14 products, she did not elect the selective

15 reduction.

16 Seventeen babies were born. Pediatric

17 follow-up has been done only in a proportion of

18 them that we know of. By that, I mean some of

19 these patients are from abroad. The issue came up

20 before that really not all these patients are

21 interested in follow-up by us, and we have tried to

22 be quite forceful with them. So, we have been able

23 to do follow-up in 13 of the 17 babies. However,

24 more recently it is more likely that some of them

25 will refuse further investigations by us. This is

124

1 not just this particular group. That is common for

2 all infertility follow-up, that you lose sight of

3 these patients. Some of them will move and not

4 even leave a return address.

5 On twin, this one twin that was born with

6 mixed sex, a boy and a girl, the boy at 18 months

7 was reported to have been diagnosed by pervasive

8 developmental disorder, not of specific origin.

9 The incidence of this in the recent literature is

10 1/250 to 1/500. This was reported to us in June of

11 last year. That was at the age of 18 months, and

12 we have no good follow-up. This is just what is

13 going on with this little boy.

14 One issue that comes up is, well, does

15 this really work? One way of investigating this is

16 to look at attempt numbers. You see here, on the

17 left\--the colors are very confusing but on the left

18 you see the first attempt number here in the

19 general IVF population that we studied. The second

20 attempt number, the third, fourth, fifth, based on

21 about 2500 patients. So, you can see in the first

22 attempt number the procedure rate. In the first

23 attempt number the success rate is very high but

24 then it significantly drops, which makes sense

25 because it left us with a more complex population.

125

1 The third attempt is also significant because of

2 the high numbers involved. Then it sort of

3 flattens off.

4 If we look at the per embryo, it is also

5 marked. This is the incidence of success by

6 embryo. It is well over 30 percent when you come

7 the first time, then it significantly drops to less

8 than 20 percent the second time, and again drops

9 significantly the third time to about 15 percent,

10 14 percent.

11 Now, the ooplasmic transfer cases are

12 here, in the red bars, and they have an average of

13 about 4.8 previous attempts. So, they actually are

14 between these two bars. That is where they should

15 be. But these patients also contain patients that

16 have repeated failure with apparently normal

17 looking embryos. So, you can\'t really make that

18 comparison strictly but it is suggestive that at

19 least it worked to some extent. This is early

20 days, only 28 patients and 33 cycles.

21 Some comments about the mitochondria work

22 that we have done. Spare eggs can be looked at and

23 you can use a stain for mitochondria and then look

24 if the egg fertilizes where these mitochondria go

25 to. We found in a number of cases they can go to

126

1 the blastomeres, sometimes not all blastomeres but

2 it is well proportioned. There was one indication

3 that they can survive for at least a few days, but

4 the best was to look at the polymorphisms in the

5 hypervariable area of the mitochondrial genome. We

6 did that work originally with regular sequencing.

7 Se looked at spare eggs and embryos that were not

8 transferred after ooplasmic transplantation.

9 Then we looked at amniocentesis. That was

10 actually quite frustrating because it is not easy

11 to get good cells there for this type of work. In

12 a couple of these babies we have been able to look

13 at the time of delivery and obtained placental

14 tissue by being present at delivery, and also

15 obtained fetal cord blood.

16 If you look at the incidence of

17 heteroplasmy, and I must say this again, this is

18 heteroplasmy in the hypervariable area, maybe we

19 should distinguish that from other forms of

20 heteroplasmy because these are extremely common in

21 the general population. Spare embryos, about half

22 of them, after a few days of culture, showed these

23 polymorphisms so that you can basically confirm

24 that mitochondria were present from the donor.

25 On amniocentesis we did only ten, and

127

1 three of them sere positive. So, mitochondria were

2 present from the donor in amniotic cells. In the

3 placenta it was 3/13. We are only looking to

4 obtain blood at the first year from those babies

5 that were positive at the time of delivery, and two

6 have been tested thus far and are still positive

7 for donor mitochondria.

8 Recent work by Carol Brenner\--because this

9 is done by sequencing which, I think most agree, is

10 not that sensitive a method\--recent work by Carol

11 Brenner has shown using molecular beacon for

12 hypervariable locations, using this work it has

13 been found that up to as much as 50 percent of the

14 mitochondria in the blood at the time of birth

15 would be positive for the donor. So, when we

16 inject 10 percent, it certainly doesn\'t mean that

17 there will always be 10 percent, but no doubt in

18 some children there will likely be a trend to

19 homoplasmy and in others maybe a consistent

20 heteroplasmy.

21 The word heritable was used this morning

22 by Dr. Hursh, and I do object to that because there

23 is no proof at all that this is heritable, but it

24 is certainly possible. No proof so far.

25 Here are the three famous words, germline

128

1 genetic modification, used by J.C. Barritt in the

2 publication last year. There were four authors on

3 this paper. The three other authors do not agree

4 with this wording. So, it only appeared in an

5 abstract; it didn\'t appear in the regular text. We

6 don\'t agree because we don\'t think that it is

7 modification. It is a kind of difference, change,

8 or maybe I don\'t have the right word. It is

9 different from what has ever happened but in my

10 opinion it is not germline genetic modification.

11 Mitochondrial diversity, not all that

12 dissimilar from this, occurs in the hypervariable

13 area in 10-15 percent of normal humans. This is

14 recent work from more sensitive assays by Tully and

15 coworkers. I must reiterate that the hypervariable

16 area is a non-coding region.

17 One issue that hasn\'t come up today yet is

18 that maybe this is a technique that places at risk

19 the transfer of mitochondrial disease.

20 Mitochondria are maternally inherited so in egg

21 donation you have mitochondria 100 percent from the

22 donor. There are no known cases of mitochondrial

23 disease after egg donation. Certainly, when you

24 use ten percent of the mitochondria from the donor,

25 would there then be suddenly an indication that

129

1 there is an increased risk factor of mitochondrial

2 disease?

3 I will quickly go through the risks, the

4 potential risk factors. Mechanical damage has been

5 raised as a risk factor. While it is an ICSI

6 derived procedure, the survival rate with this

7 procedure was better than 90 percent. However, it

8 is slightly higher, in our lab at least, than the

9 average damage rate to eggs after ICSI just

10 injecting a sperm.

11 Cytoplasmic transfer, the fertilization

12 rate is over 65 percent. So, we think that is a

13 normal fertilization rate. With ICSI there have

14 been 100,000 babies born. The pre-implantation

15 development with ICSI seems like IVF and the

16 malformation rate seems like IVF. Certainly, with

17 the bare minimum results we have, we think that the

18 malformation rate from our procedure also resembles

19 that of IVF.

20 So, what are other risks potentially to

21 offspring? Inadvertent transfer has been raised as

22 a potential issue. If you have unique organelles

23 you don\'t want to transfer those and boost them.

24 Like the centriole sperm derived, centriole is

25 separately placed in the cytoplasm. The sperm is

130

1 intactly placed in the cytoplasm. So, it is

2 unlikely you will lose that.

3 Avoid the spindle, and if you cannot avoid

4 it there should be cytokinetic analysis. So, one

5 thing we do is every egg, every donor egg from

6 which cytoplasm has been taken, we give it to the

7 cytogeneticist that is specialized in single-cell

8 cytogenetics to confirm that the chromosomes are

9 still there. In two cases we couldn\'t confirm this

10 in two eggs and the next day we, indeed, saw things

11 that we call subnuclei. These are basically small

12 nuclei that were present in the periphery of the

13 egg, not in the middle but in the periphery,

14 confirming that the cytogeneticist was right. So,

15 it is a good thing to have a cytogeneticist around,

16 otherwise one should do very detailed study of the

17 zygote, or one could use a microscope that will

18 visualize the spindle at the time of piercing, as

19 Dr. Lanzendorf has done.

20 Enhanced survival has been raised as a

21 potential risk to the offspring. The embryo is now

22 better and, therefore, you will get higher

23 implantation rates and implantation of embryos that

24 would have normally, under normal IVF/ICSI

25 conditions not have been implanted.

131

1 Aneuploidy is common. Aneuploidy is the

2 issue that has raised a lot of concern in this

3 particular group of patients. Aneuploidy is

4 common. It has been found that this is enhanced in

5 ICSI by one percent, more or less one percent. The

6 most common anomaly that is found in ICSI and also

7 in the natural population is XO. This is exactly

8 what we found in two patients that this in early

9 pregnancy.

10 Then heteroplasmy, is that a risk to the

11 offspring? Well, we have confirmed three

12 polymorphisms in three births. We think that these

13 are common in the population, or similar

14 polymorphisms are common in the population. In

15 general though, heteroplasmy is very common in

16 early human embryos when we studied this

17 experimentally in the spare material. From the

18 animal experimentation, there is no evidence of

19 risk between outbred individuals in the same

20 species. There are clearly anomalies that have

21 been shown in the literature when you don\'t use the

22 same species, or when you use highly inbred

23 individuals of the same species.

24 What are the risks to the mother? An

25 elevated incidence of chromosomal anomaly should be

132

1 considered a risk, if there is such a thing. There

2 is no statistical evidence for this so far. As I

3 said, aneuploidy is extremely common, and XO is the

4 most common form.

5 What cell issues can there be? Should

6 there be donor screening? If we do that for this

7 procedure, I don\'t know the complexity of that. I

8 don\'t know the cost factors associated with it.

9 Abnormal zygotes, fertilized eggs, I used

10 the mitochondria from there to inject back into

11 another zygote. But that has been done. It has

12 been reported by a group in Taiwan. I think this

13 was raised here before, can you maybe look at other

14 cells and get mitochondria from other cells? That

15 has been done as well. If I have a little bit of

16 time later, I will get back to that. Actually,

17 there has ben one abstract, where mitochondria were

18 taken from granulosis cells, the cells that

19 surround oocytes. These were then injected into

20 the patient\'s eggs.

21 We videotape the whole procedure for later

22 evidence that we transferred the cytoplasm. Can

23 one use frozen oocytes? We have not used frozen

24 oocytes. The disadvantage of our procedure is that

25 you have to simultaneously stimulate and monitor

133

1 the patient and the recipient and retrieval and

2 maturation of the egg has to occur on the same day.

3 That is not simple. That is actually quite a

4 challenge. So, using frozen oocytes would be an

5 advantage but oocyte freezing by itself is an

6 experiment we feel, therefore, we stayed away from

7 this.

8 We do the chromosome screen of the eggs

9 that are used. Of course, before you transfer the

10 embryo you could also do another chromosome screen.

11 We have stayed away from that but we have that

12 technology because these embryos are often not well

13 formed, and are already challenged by the procedure

14 and taking another cell out of the embryo before it

15 is transferred may be detrimental in this

16 particular group of embryos, not necessarily in

17 other groups of embryos.

18 So, what further non-clinical

19 experimentation should be done? Well, we should

20 look at costs. I am not sure that the primate

21 model is a good model for human reproduction but

22 others probably dispute that. The mouse model we

23 are using. Although there are profound genetic and

24 profound differences with the human, that is more

25 affordable and results are very rapidly obtained.

134

1 The issue with ooplasmic transplantation

2 and the way we have done it and Dr. Lanzendorf\'s

3 group has done it is that that is just one

4 particular application. There is a host of

5 applications that are waiting that, in one way or

6 another, involve ooplasmic transplantation, not

7 necessarily for the same purpose as I have

8 described here. One of them is treating

9 mitochondrial disease. You could replace the whole

10 cytoplasm or ooplasm of a donor egg in a patient

11 that is at risk of transferring mitochondrial

12 disease to offspring. That is one potential

13 application.

14 There are other applications as well,

15 avoiding aneuploidy by going into very immature

16 eggs and changing the regulation of how miosis

17 occurs by trying to maintain regular ploidy rather

18 than aneuploidy. It is obviously under cytoplasmic

19 control. So, if you were to do this early, at

20 least in theory we believe you could avoid

21 aneuploidy. That would be important particularly

22 since aneuploidy is the biggest problem area in our

23 field. There are other applications as well.

24 Here are the two babies that had benign

25 heteroplasmy. This picture was taken two years ago

135

1 so they are almost four years old and they are both

2 doing fine.

3 Finally, just a few words about

4 transferring mitochondria, this was reported in an

5 abstract last year. This was shortly after

6 September 11 so I was waiting in the room for that

7 particular presentation but they never came to the

8 country and this meeting was very poorly attended

9 because this was only a few weeks after September

10 11. Anyhow, the abstract argues that there is a

11 single course for ooplasmic problems, and that is

12 the mitochondria. There is absolutely no

13 confirmation for that. Mitochondria obviously may

14 have a higher rate of mutation but there is no

15 proof that this is the only problem. They used

16 somatic mitochondria which is an interesting idea,

17 but the isolation process could be an issue, for

18 instance formation of free radicals.

19 Age-related mutation should be considered

20 since these are mitochondria from somatic cells and

21 may have, or very likely will have age-related

22 mutations. They are also replicating mitochondria.

23 What will happen in the recipient cells? That is

24 an interesting question that will come up.

25 Mitochondria in eggs do not replicate. They do

136

1 that after implantation. So, they are actually

2 somewhat dormant in that respect. Somatic

3 mitochondria are very different. Somatic

4 mitochondria have multiple mitochondrial genomes

5 per mitochondrion for instance, whereas oocyte

6 mitochondria only have one genome. So, they are

7 very different although they seem similar.

8 That is all I have to present. Thank you.

9 Question and Answer

10 DR. SALOMON: Thank you very much, Dr.

11 Cohen. Obviously with the changes in this

12 morning\'s schedule we are not quite following the

13 time line here but this is such an extraordinarily

14 rich presentation in terms of questions that I

15 think we are just going to have to spend some time

16 to address these. I think this and Dr.

17 Lanzendorf\'s are kind of pivotal. So, I do realize

18 that we are not on time but we will deal with this

19 in a little bit.

20 I have a lot of questions but let me just

21 start with one little part and then turn it over to

22 some of the others, as I am sure I won\'t be alone.

23 You know, the one theme that we picked up in Dr.

24 Lanzendorf\'s presentation is what is the basic

25 science background for doing this? Then we will go

137

1 on to talk about what is the clinical evidence for

2 doing this, and you have given us a lot to think

3 about.

4 So, going back to the basic science

5 evidence of it, you presented two kinds of basic

6 science arguments for ooplasm transfer, i.e., kind

7 of a rationale. One was this PED phenotype. The

8 other was some data on Mad2 mRNA transcript numbers

9 and maternal age. Again, it is okay if it is not

10 convincing but I didn\'t find that either of those

11 was clear to me or convincing.

12 With respect to the PED gene phenotype, I

13 didn\'t understand how you related slow and fast

14 embryos back to a PED gene phenotype, and then how

15 that had anything to do with ooplasm transfer.

16 Similarly, you implied that gene arrays and other

17 technologies have shown differences in gene

18 expression as a function of maternal age in terms

19 of implantation failures, and that certainly makes

20 sense to me in some of the functional genomics we

21 do in angiogenic stem cells. But how do you relate

22 a change in transcript numbers to transferring

23 10-15 percent of ooplasm? I mean, what evidence is

24 there that 10-15 percent of ooplasm transfer

25 provides an increase in, in your example, Mad2 mRNA

138

1 transcripts, and does that increase them to a level

2 that is equal to more successful implantation

3 phenotype? So, I guess those are the kinds of

4 questions I would like you to address since those

5 are your arguments.

6 DR. COHEN: I have a short memory so I

7 will start with the last one, why ten percent? It

8 seems so little. If it was a blood cell it would

9 be little, but the human egg is the largest cell

10 that exists. It is an enormous volume and it is

11 known that you can lose 75 percent of the volume

12 and still get a human. So, 75 percent of the

13 volume can be destroyed and since you have to have

14 some unique organelles like chromosomes and a

15 centriole, it is likely that you can reduce that

16 volume even further. So, ten percent is not little

17 at all, and we have calculated it is about 10,000

18 mitochondria for instance. So, it is a huge

19 amount. That is considerably higher than the

20 number of mitochondria in mouse eggs for instance

21 that are smaller.

22 So, coming back to the PED, I think what

23 is different in other developmental sequences is

24 that in mammalian fertilization early development

25 the embryonic genome is not active yet. It is all

139

1 dependent on what is present in the egg. So, when

2 you sequentially look at a transcript like actin

3 and you look at it one day and the next day and the

4 next day, you will see it diminished to levels that

5 you could almost call starving, if that would be

6 the right word for it, but it really dramatically

7 diminishes and then at the activation of the genome

8 the embryo starts taking care of all this and you

9 can see that going up.

10 So, what this shows is that these levels

11 of expression are so different between cells of the

12 same stage that it is maybe not direct evidence but

13 it is likely that there is a physiological

14 difference between these individuals. I think Mad2

15 is very likely because there it is a spindle

16 regulating factor and it is related to maternal

17 age, and we know that in maternal age not only is

18 there an increase in aneuploidy but the typical

19 non-disjunction form of aneuploidy in mosaicism is

20 also related to maternal age in the human in early

21 development. So, I think it is very plausible.

22 In PED, in the mouse at least, a human

23 homolog has never been found. I was just

24 indicating that there is a phenotypic similarity.

25 We are looking for human homologs and they are

140

1 probably in the HLA system.

2 DR. SALOMON: But I am just pointing out

3 to you that to make your case what you need to do

4 is show us that if you transmitted 10-15 percent of

5 the ooplasm that therein would be contained enough

6 messenger RNA from Mad2 to alter the

7 transcriptorsome of the recipient in such a way

8 that at least you wouldn\'t have to demonstrate in

9 the first set of experiments that it was

10 functional, but just demonstrate that even

11 numerically the transcriptorsome would be altered

12 significantly enough to bring it into a range.

13 Then, of course, the next set of experiments would

14 be to show that it is functional.

15 DR. COHEN: Would you give me permission

16 to do this in the human?

17 DR. SALOMON: We will get back to that,

18 but I think what we are all trying to do is

19 respectfully sit here and say, okay, what is the

20 data? What is the data basic? What is the data in

21 animal studies and what is the data in clinical? I

22 was just starting with the basic. You have made a

23 very intelligent start by saying, okay, look, here

24 are changes in transcriptosome, changes in

25 messenger RNA levels. My response is, okay, you

141

1 know, I am following you but I am saying it is not

2 convincing. I mean, you have to give us a little

3 bit more to justify this at this basic level. If

4 the data is not there, the data is not there.

5 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Just to clarify

6 something, you are not saying that the embryo from

7 fertilization to, let\'s say, the four-cell stage is

8 transcriptionally inactive, are you?

9 DR. COHEN: No, it is not. There is some

10 leakage, yes.

11 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Because, in fact, things

12 like actin, etc. are made off maternal\--

13 DR. COHEN: Sure.

14 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Even in the mouse where

15 it had been earlier thought that major genome

16 activation occurred around the two-cell stage, in

17 fact it has been brought back earlier to the

18 pronuclear stage. In fact, there is probably

19 embryonic genomic activation very early, but the

20 major genomic activation, that is the major switch

21 from the maternal stores to a whole embryonic

22 program is probably at about the four- to

23 eight-cell stage, but it is not transcriptionally

24 inactive.

25 DR. COHEN: Yes, thank you for explaining.

142

1 DR. NAVIAUX: How long would you expect to

2 be able to detect transferred RNA in the embryo?

3 What is the half-life?

4 DR. COHEN: The half-life is very short I

5 think.

6 DR. NAVIAUX: Would you expect it to be

7 equivalent to the RNA already in the oocyte?

8 DR. COHEN: The experiment that hasn\'t

9 been done is to take an oocyte and then take one of

10 the two-cell blastomeres and then take one of the

11 other cells of the two-cell blastomere and look

12 sequentially like that. It is done by indirect, by

13 looking at populations and then comparing the

14 different stages. It is very clear that it

15 diminishes from stage to stage. It is very

16 sensitive. It diminishes very rapidly.

17 DR. NAVIAUX: I was trying to get a feel

18 for the window of opportunity for other potential

19 genetic events to occur from the transferred

20 nucleic acid, including potentially the

21 retrotransposition of this.

22 DR. COHEN: I have no evidence for that.

23 It is certainly possible.

24 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Sausville, Dr. Mulligan

25 and Dr. Van Blerkom.

143

1 DR. SAUSVILLE: The concern I have about

2 the direction of the conversation that is happening

3 now and, again, I congratulate you on a very

4 thoughtful presentation but I think it does

5 highlight one of the issues, that mitochondria have

6 been put on the table as one explanation for a

7 benefit. I guess we are going to hear more about

8 mitochondrial physiology in which, hopefully, there

9 will be some clear and direct evidence that

10 mitochondria might do such a thing.

11 But we have just heard of another class of

12 molecules, your presentation brought up a

13 particular class of mRNAs, forgetting the whole

14 issue of mRNA in general. I mean, this points to a

15 key difficulty that I think we have in thinking

16 about this in that one of the components of an IND

17 is actually a definition of what actually is the

18 substance under investigation in an IND. I am a

19 little concerned, even if one believes there is an

20 effect and we heard earlier this morning that there

21 really isn\'t any evidence that there is an effect,

22 is how we would define the potential basis for

23 investigational activity with this. Are we going

24 to have ooplasm that has a particular type of mRNA

25 or a particular number of mitochondria or a

144

1 particular class of mitochondrial genomes? I would

2 be interested in your thoughts on how one would

3 define, in essence, the focus of the IND

4 application in this regard.

5 DR. COHEN: I asked that question to the

6 FDA representatives a few months ago and I didn\'t

7 get an answer because I don\'t think they understand

8 that either.

9 DR. SALOMON: I think that is why we are

10 here.

11 DR. COHEN: Yes, so I wouldn\'t know how to

12 do this. I have no idea.

13 DR. SAUSVILLE: Well, if you don\'t\--

14 DR. COHEN: Personally, I have not

15 experienced this IND process. Looking at the IND

16 process, it is so different, the psychology of it

17 is so different from this type of typical medical

18 intervention approach that it is extremely

19 difficult to come up with a solution.

20 DR. SIEGEL: Just from a historical

21 perspective, there are certainly plenty of

22 precedents in biological development in particular

23 for products whose active ingredients are not well

24 identified. Some of the earliest biologics,

25 regulated as biologics, were horse antisera and,

145

1 you know anti-venoms and toxins and so forth. Of

2 course, over the last couple of decades the field

3 has moved to much more highly purified products

4 which are, therefore, easier to ensure that you

5 don\'t have unwanted materials and where you can

6 quantitate what you have. We certainly support

7 that area of development, but there is nothing

8 about an IND process per se that requires that you

9 have a handle on what component it is of what you

10 are testing that is the potential active component.

11 DR. SAUSVILLE: Ah. But, on the other

12 hand, my understanding is\--and those are good

13 examples actually\--that despite that lack of

14 definition there is, nonetheless, a very precise

15 assay that will tell you that your material is

16 functioning as you think it is functioning.

17 Correct?

18 DR. SIEGEL: That is right, and we

19 certainly require by the time of licensure a

20 potency assay. That is required by regulation and

21 that requires development of information. In fact,

22 it is the case for many that we now have under IND.

23 However, the development of the potency assay often

24 occurs concurrent with the early clinical studies

25 because it requires identification of markers that

146

1 can be measured that, hopefully, then can be

2 validated to be predictive of the desired clinical

3 effect.

4 DR. SAUSVILLE: So, that then actually

5 does play back to the question I asked. You

6 pointed to the limitations appropriately of the

7 animal models that are around for this type of

8 work. Nonetheless, it would seem that such models

9 might be the place to begin to develop this type of

10 information that could be a basis for conveying

11 confidence at the very least, forgetting the IND

12 process, that you would be able to advise a

13 particular patient that the procedures that are in

14 place are likely to be productive of some normative

15 standard of activity through the process.

16 DR. COHEN: Yes, and I think that the body

17 of literature is not enormous, but particularly the

18 work of Larry Smith is very convincing and this is

19 done in outbred mice going through 15 generations

20 with apparently normal development, normal growth.

21 What else are you looking for?

22 DR. SAUSVILLE: I would like to know what

23 conveys that normal growth. What is the physical

24 basis of that normal growth?

25 DR. COHEN: That is more than a textbook.

147

1 I mean, that is the whole field of early

2 embryology. You are looking at an extremely

3 difficult process that is hindered by all sorts of

4 factors in terms of how we can study it. I am as

5 curious as you are. So, I appreciate the concern,

6 but that is looking at the oocyte like a product;

7 let\'s understand the product, and I think what is

8 being attempted here is to take something this

9 complicated and then put it in the form of IND. I

10 have no idea how to do that.

11 DR. SALOMON: I think we will return to

12 that this afternoon. I think the issue that has

13 ben well articulated now is what\--I mean, we can

14 always take every one of these questions and get

15 down to these really big, fundamental scientific

16 questions and we all know around the table that you

17 are not going to know every single thing about how

18 you create a normal embryo before you do these

19 studies. No one is holding you to that sort of a

20 standard. But it will be really interesting to

21 talk about what it is we want to know, and what

22 kind of scientific questions will be answered even

23 while perhaps certain clinical studies are going on

24 just to make sure that there is development along

25 the right lines in the field. Dr. Mulligan?

148

1 DR. MULLIGAN: Can you give us a sense of

2 how you test for fragmentation of either

3 mitochondrial DNA or nuclear DNA and then transfer?

4 In principle, if you such out the cytoplasm there

5 is some chance for fragmentation of both of those

6 DNAs, and it would be, I think, very important to

7 see if that does occur because once you have kind

8 of disrupted the normal mitochondrial architecture

9 it is like doing gene transfer, that is, it is like

10 injecting fragments of DNA and there is every

11 expectation that there would be uptake by the

12 chromosomal DNA like normally occurs. So, have you

13 looked at ways in a single cell?

14 DR. COHEN: I would be more concerned

15 about it in the isolation process of mitochondria,

16 but here is a package of cytoplasm that is moved

17 from one cell to another cell within seconds in a

18 synchronous fashion. So, I don\'t think that

19 concern is really valid. It would certainly be

20 valid I think in the work that was done by the

21 Taiwanese where mitochondria were isolated and then

22 processed in ways we don\'t know yet, but they were

23 processed, isolated from granulosis cells and then

24 injected into the recipient cells. I think there

25 that is a concern because you do true isolation

149

1 process of an organelle. In our case we are

2 transferring cytoplasm intact.

3 DR. MULLIGAN: Yes, but I thought you said

4 there is a risk of actually getting contamination.

5 DR. COHEN: Sure.

6 DR. MULLIGAN: So, in principle that has

7 the potential for fragmentation, and isn\'t that key

8 to see whether or not there are detectable bits and

9 pieces of genomic DNA?

10 DR. COHEN: No, we have just done

11 classical cytogenetics. We looked for whole

12 chromosomes; we have not looked for bits.

13 DR. MULLIGAN: You mentioned that you have

14 a good cytogeneticist who can detect things, that

15 is, the most gross assay for a microbiologist to be

16 able to detect things much easier.

17 DR. COHEN: Yes.

18 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Maybe you could clear up

19 some points on what you said. As I recall, in the

20 initial births the amount of DNA that was

21 detectable was a trace amount.

22 DR. COHEN: There was nothing in the

23 original, right.

24 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Now you are saying that

25 Carol has seen up to 50 percent. Was that from the

150

1 original samples using another assay, or is the

2 mitochondrial DNA expanding?

3 DR. COHEN: No, they are all the same

4 samples and, I am sorry, I just gave you the wrong

5 answer because in the first births we were not able

6 to confirm heteroplasmy; we found a homoplasmy

7 condition. In the births since then, with regular

8 sequencing, we found levels, we found levels up to

9 20 percent.

10 DR. VAN BLERKOM: At birth?

11 DR. COHEN: At birth. That includes the

12 placenta. Placenta seems to be always higher.

13 With the new method those same samples were

14 reassayed and there we found levels up to 50

15 percent.

16 DR. VAN BLERKOM: So, it is very likely a

17 sensitivity issue. So, you don\'t have evidence

18 that there is an expansion of the mitochondria from

19 birth.

20 DR. COHEN: No, I don\'t have evidence of

21 it yet but I have always been interested in that.

22 DR. VAN BLERKOM: The other question then

23 is if you look at the process of cytoplasm

24 transfer, which I don\'t think is an issue related

25 to mitochondrial damage just from the logistics of

151

1 the transfer process, in at attempt to standardize,

2 and I know you have done this so maybe you should

3 talk about the data where you have actually taken

4 the same amount of cytoplasm from different

5 portions of eggs and then counted the number of

6 mitochondria, and there are differences.

7 DR. COHEN: Yes.

8 DR. VAN BLERKOM: So, maybe you can talk a

9 little bit about the extent of differences that you

10 get that is location dependent, and how that my

11 reflect on what you are putting back, what you know

12 and don\'t know about the magnitude of the donated

13 mitochondria.

14 DR. COHEN: The procedure is standard,

15 however, ooplasm differs from egg to egg. There

16 are physical properties that are different. So,

17 you want to pick up cytoplasm just using suction.

18 It is certainly not comparable from one cell to the

19 other. So, in some cases the procedure differs

20 from other cases. Also, the cytoplasm is not

21 sampled statically. I should have brought a

22 videotape. It is actually sampled throughout the

23 whole area opposite the polar body rather than one

24 area. It is a good, valid point. It is known that

25 the egg is very dissimilar from area to area so we

152

1 try to sample a relatively large area of the egg.

2 We have also varied the amount of cytoplasm that we

3 transfer. All I can say about that is that if you

4 look at the higher amounts, the higher volumes of

5 cytoplasm that has been transferred, the more

6 likely it is that the procedure is unsuccessful,

7 for reasons I don\'t understand but that is what the

8 finding was.

9 DR. SCHON: Just a clarification, Dr.

10 Mulligan, I am gathering that the question about

11 fragmentation\--I won\'t talk about the nuclear

12 transposition events, but at least for the

13 mitochondrial DNA transposition events, my guess is

14 that, first, there would be very few fragmentation

15 events to begin with. It is a tiny molecule. It

16 is stuck in nucleoids inside the mitochondria. If

17 you visualize what is going on, it probably

18 wouldn\'t happen that frequently. Let\'s say it

19 does, and it does go into the nucleus, first, the

20 worry would not be whether that transfected DNA

21 would actually do something because it has a

22 different genetic code. Whether it would transpose

23 into some other gene, it may but again the likely

24 hood would be low because there are at least a

25 thousand and maybe more nuclear embedded

153

1 pseudogenes of mitochondrial DNA to begin with so

2 it would probably go in by homologous recombination

3 into places that are genetically quiescent\--I don\'t

4 know how else to put it. So, it could happen but I

5 wouldn\'t give a huge probability for it.

6 DR. MULLIGAN: Yes, I would think the risk

7 would be cytoplasmic DNA actually integrating in

8 the incorrect location. I would very much doubt

9 that you would get what you say, homologous

10 integration into pseudogenes or mitochondrial

11 sequences. So, it would be the risk of insertions

12 comparable to a retrovirus insertion. It is like

13 thinking of injecting a plasmid DNA. I guess what

14 I didn\'t know is what the chances that the intact

15 mitochondria would actually, by whatever vortex

16 when you are trying to suck out the cytoplasm, with

17 there is damage such that you would actually get,

18 you know, naked DNA. But the other half of it, of

19 course, was the nuclear DNA which I think would be

20 much more likely to have the same potential for

21 integrating in some incorrect location. And, I

22 think it is very, very tough from all we know with

23 gene transfer to assess the efficiency of the

24 process. It is very amazing how different

25 approaches to gene transfer can dramatically give

154

1 you different efficiency. So, even several

2 molecules, you know, if they are given by a fancy

3 method like this, this could be the most efficient

4 method we have relative to other systems.

5 DR. SCHON: Then, could I just comment to

6 Dr. Sausville? I actually think that trying to

7 figure out the exact active ingredient, if you

8 will, of the ooplasm may well wind up being a

9 bottomless pit. It is the ooplasm itself that may

10 actually be doing it. There is not evidence that

11 it is mitochondria. If you were to merely just put

12 in mitochondria or some subfractionation element,

13 you might get nothing also. I think there is so

14 much synergism going on that merely doing pair-wise

15 analyses, each alone might give no outcome whereas

16 ooplasm, where we have no evidence that there is

17 outcome yet, might give an outcome, and it should

18 be borne in mind.

19 DR. RAO: Just a couple of clarifications

20 for what you talked about. You made a point about

21 saying you disagreed with germline transmission.

22 Was that because it hasn\'t been tested in germinal

23 cells or is it because you want to wait for F2? I

24 mean, what is the reason?

25 DR. COHEN: Also the modification. It is

155

1 not a modification and it has not been proven to be

2 heritable.

3 DR. RAO: So, because it is not heritable.

4 DR. COHEN: Not proven to be heritable.

5 DR. RAO: The second question was on the

6 point that you made about somatic mitochondria, was

7 this ooplasmic mitochondria, and you said one big

8 difference was in the rate of cell division. But

9 do you think there is any other major difference?

10 The other point you made was about it is a multiple

11 genome. Did you mean that it is because it had

12 inherited mutations and that is why it was more

13 than one genome?

14 DR. COHEN: Yes, it is all those things.

15 There are multiple genomes and mitochondria from

16 somatic cells, anywhere from two to ten I think.

17 In eggs the ratio is very close to one. So, that

18 is different. The other difference is that

19 mitochondria and oocytes and embryos do not

20 replicate, whereas somatic mitochondria do. So,

21 that would be a different control situation. It is

22 an interesting suggestion.

23 DR. RAO: The last question is that there

24 seems to be a suggestion that there won\'t be a

25 whole lot of mitochondrial transfer that would have

156

1 occurred, at least it was a surprising result that

2 you had in mitochondrial transfer. What is the

3 basis? I mean, I am not absolutely sure why people

4 thought that you would not get mitochondrial

5 transfer and maybe you can tell me.

6 DR. COHEN: Well, if I had this discussion

7 several years ago it may have been a different

8 story, but we use it as a marker. We are just

9 interested to see what happened to these

10 mitochondria, and this is the outcome of it. But

11 it was the advantage of hindsight. You are totally

12 right, I mean, it is not surprising.

13 DR. CASPER: I want to go back to Dr.

14 Mulligan\'s point again. We do have some experience

15 in creating mitochondrial preparations from

16 granulosis cells, from mouse embryonic stem cells,

17 from human umbilical cord blood to hematopoietic

18 stem cells and also from human leukemia cell line,

19 and it is actually quite easy to do it. There are

20 some technical issues that took us a while to

21 actually figure out, but morphologically at least

22 when you look at the preparations they seem to be

23 pretty pure, intact mitochondria. So, the actual

24 morphology at least of the mitochondria looks

25 normal. We have injected these mitochondrial

157

1 preparations into mouse oocytes and zygotes.

2 There is a stain of mice called FVB mice

3 that have a mitochondrial defect and oocytes

4 fragment in vitro, and with both granulosis cell,

5 so somatic cell mitochondrial injections and with

6 stem cell mitochondrial injections we have been

7 able to prevent at least 50 percent of the

8 fragmentation rate in those oocytes. We have also

9 injected mitochondria into mouse zygotes and we

10 have found that, contrary to there being any

11 detrimental effect, it does seem to advance or

12 speed up the rate of blastocyst formation in those

13 mice.

14 Those are preliminary results so far but

15 we certainly didn\'t see any detrimental effect

16 unless we actually let the mitochondrial

17 preparations sit for a while on the bench, and then

18 what we think is happening is that you are starting

19 to get leakage and cytochrome C which could

20 actually be detrimental at that point. So,

21 certainly from a cytoplasmic transfer point of

22 view, I don\'t think you are going to damage the

23 mitochondria at all because we are actually

24 mechanically disrupting the cell membrane of these

25 cells and centrifuging the contents to separate out

158

1 the mitochondria, and we don\'t seem to do any

2 damage to the mitochondria in that situation.

3 Let me comment on the prior comment. I

4 think you would have been surprised had there been

5 homoplasmy; you would have expected heteroplasmy.

6 In fact, we were the group that analyzed Dolly for

7 heteroplasmy and we did not find it. It was

8 homoplasmic. Those were sheep, and if you look at

9 cows, they are heteroplasmic all over the place.

10 So, it is the expectation to be heteroplasmic and

11 it is something to worry about.

12 DR. SAUSVILLE: You referred to the

13 experience with ICSI, which I interpret to be

14 intracytoplasmic sperm implantation. Is that

15 correct?

16 DR. COHEN: Injection.

17 DR. SAUSVILLE: Injection. Just from a

18 sort of standard practice of this field, what would

19 be the expected rate of major abnormalities

20 resulting from ICSI as a process?

21 DR. COHEN: In the literature there is a

22 range from 2 percent to nine percent. But a larger

23 study, a study from the Belgium group who

24 originated the procedure, with 3000 babies born, I

25 think there was 3.4 percent, something around

159

1 there, and showed a significant increase in the

2 rate of XOs.

3 DR. SAUSVILLE: But still that rate didn\'t

4 go beyond a three percent sort of range?

5 DR. COHEN: No.

6 DR. SAUSVILLE: Thank you.

7 DR. COHEN: There is one publication that

8 shows a rate of nine percent, but it was the same

9 in the ICF population that was studied. That was a

10 recent paper in The Journal of Medicine, in March.

11 It was based on a small sample size but that is the

12 only really high rate I know of.

13 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Moos?

14 DR. MOOS: First a comment on several of

15 the remarks that have dealt with the

16 characterization of the active principle. Cell

17 biologists and biochemists have been fractionating

18 very complex systems for well over a hundred years

19 to see what part does what, and we are nowhere near

20 the bottom of the pit. Nevertheless, even though

21 we are shy of finding out where is the final proton

22 and what it does, we have amassed a tremendous

23 amount of very useful information.

24 So, I submit that a sensible way to look

25 at it is to do the sorts of experiments that are

160

1 feasible and reasonable not just to enhance our

2 understanding or to prove that this is good and

3 that is bad, but to allow us to be able to develop

4 some sense of what is necessary to keep consistent

5 for a product to perform in a way that we can

6 understand and predict.

7 A specific question that extends a point

8 that was raised by Dr. Salomon and yourself, Dr.

9 Cohen, since you brought up specific mRNA

10 transcripts, has anyone evaluated whether injection

11 simply of RNAs encoding some of the candidate genes

12 you mentioned or pools of candidate genes has a

13 beneficial effect on embryo quality?

14 DR. COHEN: Obviously none of those

15 studies could be done in the human at this point.

16 I am not sure that work like that was done.

17 Certainly interference with mRNA was done, just the

18 opposite, interfering with a specific RNA but I am

19 not aware of injecting.

20 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Murray and then Dr. Van

21 Blerkom and we will finish there.

22 DR. MURRAY: Dr. Sausville\'s questions

23 about abnormalities associated with ICSI, I believe

24 one of the studies, recently published, indicated

25 the risk of low birth weight was also roughly

161

1 double, and that is after testing for multiple

2 pregnancies.

3 The question I have for Dr. Cohen, I am

4 asking for help in making sense of some of the

5 numbers you presented about the incidence of

6 heteroplasmy. You gave us a number\--we don\'t have

7 copies of your slides so this is from

8 memory\--something like evidence of heteroplasmy in

9 10-15 percent in a hypervariable region in the

10 population. Am I recalling that correctly? The

11 question is if you were to think about risk,

12 obviously one of the ways one would think about

13 risk is to say, you know, does this occur more or

14 less often in the population that has been exposed

15 to this particular intervention, ooplasm transfer,

16 than the general population? I assume the

17 hypervariable region is a non-coding region. Is

18 that correct?

19 DR. COHEN: Yes.

20 DR. MURRAY: Therefore, you know, it may

21 not be clinically significant. But here we have a

22 heteroplasmy that is perhaps in a coding region, I

23 assume if you are doing ooplasm transfer, so

24 wouldn\'t we want also to have data that gave us

25 some indication about heteroplasmy in coding

162

1 regions?

2 DR. COHEN: That has not been done, and

3 that would be interesting. The work that has been

4 done has all been on the hypervariable area.

5 DR. MURRAY: So, the 10-15 percent number

6 doesn\'t tell us very much. It doesn\'t tell me very

7 much.

8 DR. COHEN: No, but one thing that comes

9 out is that it is an evolving field. Going by the

10 literature, five, six, seven years ago the

11 incidence was considered to be\--well, there was no

12 number but it was very rare to see this. So, now

13 with new sensitive assays it is apparently much a

14 higher frequency.

15 DR. MURRAY: But again, mutations in

16 hypervariable non-coding regions are presumably not

17 clinically significant, whereas what we would be

18 interested in is evidence of mutations\--

19 DR. COHEN: You shouldn\'t call it a

20 mutation. It is hypervariable; it is not a

21 mutation.

22 DR. MURRAY: Fair enough.

23 DR. SCHON: Can I just say something

24 because I think I can clear this up? You transfer

25 the whole molecule when you transfer mitochondrial

163

1 DNA, and you and I differ at 50 different bases in

2 our mitochondrial DNA. Some of them happen to be

3 in hypervariable region and some of them are in

4 coding regions. So, you can\'t speak about

5 mutations in mitochondrial DNA as being different.

6 You get the whole molecule. If I transferred your

7 mitochondrial DNA to me, I would get 50 different

8 base substitutions on average. Some of them would

9 be in the non-coding, some in the coding region.

10 So, the notion that 15 percent of babies

11 that are born with heteroplasmy in a hypervariable

12 region is just wrong. It is wrong. There is no

13 evidence for it at all. The evidence is that

14 somatic mutations, if you look at individuals and

15 sample muscle or heart, for instance, you can find

16 heteroplasmy in about 15 percent of those

17 individuals perhaps at an extremely low level and

18 it is in a single cell. It has nothing to do with

19 the germline.

20 DR. SALOMON: So, it is not a safety

21 issue.

22 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Just two questions. The

23 donors were not mitochondrially typed. Right?

24 These were random donors or did you type the

25 mitochondrial DNA?

164

1 DR. COHEN: No, we didn\'t do that, no.

2 DR. VAN BLERKOM: So, this was after the

3 fact?

4 DR. COHEN: Yes.

5 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Then the second

6 question, maybe you can provide some basis or

7 explanation as to why transferring a relatively

8 small amount of cytoplasm would give you what you

9 now see as 50 percent heteroplasmy, and do you

10 think there is an upper limit on that? In other

11 words, what is the upper limit?

12 DR. COHEN: The upper limit is 100

13 percent.

14 DR. VAN BLERKOM: So, as your techniques

15 for sensitivity increase, is it possible that, in

16 fact, it will be above 50 percent?

17 DR. COHEN: It is certainly possible, and

18 it is certainly possible that there would be a

19 drift over time.

20 DR. VAN BLERKOM: So, how could you

21 replace this fairly sizeable replacement?

22 DR. COHEN: It is an enigma of the

23 bottleneck, the mitochondrial bottleneck. That is

24 where I think some of the clues lie. Replication

25 doesn\'t take place until implantation of

165

1 mitochondria so the number of mitochondria that are

2 suggested to be passed on is relatively small. I

3 think Dr. Schon did some work on that, and I think

4 it is a very small percent, less than 0.1 percent

5 of the mitochondria in the oocyte that will

6 actually make it to clonal expansion.

7 So, if you look at it that way, I think

8 mathematically anything is possible. But it is

9 certainly possible that there is a positive effect

10 here. Everybody always likes to emphasize negative

11 effects. Maybe there is a positive effect here and

12 these are simply coming from a population that is

13 more fit. That is a possibility. One thing I

14 think Dr. Murray raised which is interesting is

15 that we only found 3/13 and it looks very similar

16 to maybe ratios that you would expect. So, it

17 could just be a chance phenomenon as well.

18 DR. SALOMON: Thank you all very much.

19 Even though we are off schedule, I don\'t think I

20 would do it any differently, and that is just part

21 of going into these very new areas where there are

22 just a lot of really important issues that I think

23 need to get set on the table early in order for us

24 to do our job. So, I think this is fine. We will

25 just have to deal with it a little later, and we

166

1 will. There is no free lunch in life, and

2 certainly not on this committee.

3 But speaking of lunch, I am going to make

4 an executive decision that we go to lunch now and

5 then kind of put all the mitochondria stuff

6 together after lunch. It is 12:50 essentially. If

7 we can try and do this in half an hour and be back

8 here\--if you can just sort of eat and come back, we

9 will start as soon as possible, as close to 1:20 as

10 possible. Thank you.

11 \[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the proceedings

12 were recessed, to resume at 1:40 p.m.\]

167

1 A F T E R N O O N P R O C E E D I N G S

2 DR. SALOMON: If we can sit down again.

3 Not that I am surprised, this is classic, we should

4 have been back at 1:15 and here we are at 1:45.

5 Anyway, I am sure there will be a couple of other

6 people bopping in as we go along but we do need to

7 get started.

8 The next speaker this afternoon is Dr.

9 Eric Shoubridge, from the Montreal Neurological

10 Institute, to talk about transmission and

11 segregation of mitochondrial DNA. That will be

12 followed by Dr. Van Blerkom, talking about

13 mitochondrial function. So, we are going to kind

14 of focus on mitochondria now.

15 Transmission and Segregation of mtDNA

16 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I think my brief here is

17 to tell you a little bit about what we understand

18 about how mitochondrial DNA sequence variants get

19 transmitted from generation to generation, and how

20 they segregate in somatic cells and in the germline

21 after that.

22 Most of what I am going to talk about is

23 in the mouse model, a mouse model that we generated

24 in my own lab, but I will try and relate it as much

25 as I can to the human experience.

168

1 So, just so that we are all on the same

2 page, a few people have mentioned the basic

3 principles of mitochondriogenics but I just want to

4 go over them very briefly. It is a 1000 copy

5 genome in most cells. It is strictly maternally

6 inherited. As has been mentioned, the male

7 contribution gets into the zygote but it is

8 destroyed by mechanisms that are still not well

9 understood. The gametes are special cells, if you

10 will, but the oocyte contains about 100,000 copies,

11 at least 100,000 copies of mitochondrial DNA, and

12 they are thought to be organized at about one copy

13 per organelle, and the sperm contains about 100.

14 Germline and somatic mutations can produce

15 mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy. So, at birth, it

16 is thought, that most individuals that are not

17 carrying a disease mutation that they have

18 inherited from their mom are homoplasmic. That is,

19 every single mitochondrial DNA in the body has the

20 same sequence. Nobody has really looked at this in

21 great detail in thousands of individuals, but it is

22 thought that most babies have in their bodies the

23 same sequence in every cell, in every mitochondria.

24 It is a highly polymorphic genome so each one of us

25 at this table differs by about 50 base pairs on

169

1 average between our mitochondrial DNA sequences.

2 How does it segregate? It segregates for

3 two reasons. One is that the replication of the

4 genome is not very tightly linked to the cell

5 cycle. In fact, it is not tightly linked to the

6 cell cycle. What that means is that templates can

7 either replicate or not during a cell cycle. So,

8 what is controlled in a cell specific way is the

9 total number of copies of mitochondrial DNA. So,

10 neurons have different numbers than muscle cells,

11 than fibroblasts and cells in the kidney, but they

12 are turning over by mechanisms that we don\'t

13 understand even in post-mitotic cells. The copy

14 number is maintained but who replicates and who

15 doesn\'t is not very well controlled or even

16 understood.

17 So, in cells that are dividing there is an

18 additional feature, that mitochondrial DNA is

19 randomly partitioned at cytokinesis. So, we have

20 two mechanisms that segregate sequence variants,

21 both in cells that are mitotic and cells that are

22 post-mitotic. That leads to this process that we

23 are all interested in, called replicative

24 segregation and the fact that the mitochondrial

25 genotype you get at birth, if you happen to be

170

1 heteroplasmic, can be different in space and can

2 change in time.

3 You already saw this picture that was

4 produced in a review by Bill DeMaro, and we know

5 now that mutations in mitochondrial DNA are

6 important in a large variety of diseases. There

7 aren\'t very many things we can say this, except

8 that they can occur at any age and affect any

9 tissue. That is sort of the worst case

10 interpretation of this picture here but, in fact,

11 these diseases generally affect the central nervous

12 system, the heart and the skeleton muscle, tissues

13 that rely heavily on ATP produced oxidatively.

14 The two questions I want to answer today

15 are how is mitochondrial DNA transmitted between

16 generations? The second one is what controls the

17 segregation of mitochondrial DNA sequence variants

18 in different tissues of the body?

19 It has been known for some time that

20 mitochondrial DNA sequence variants segregate

21 rapidly between generations. This was first

22 established by Bill Houseworth and his colleagues

23 in pedigrees of Holstein cows. What I want to show

24 you, which is typical of the human situation, is a

25 large pedigree that was published by Neils Larson,

171

1 from Sweden probably about ten years ago. It is a

2 five generation pedigree that is segregating a

3 particular mutation in tRNA. It is a point

4 mutation that is associated with this phenotype

5 called MERF and it has these clinical features.

6 There is a single person that is affected

7 by this diseases in this five generation pedigree

8 who has all of these features. What I want to

9 point out here is if we just look at this line of

10 the maternal lineage here, the numbers that are

11 associated\--and I am sorry, you can\'t see them from

12 the back\--the numbers that are beside these are

13 measurements of heteroplasmy in the blood of these

14 individuals. It turns out for this particular

15 mutation, but it is not generally true, that what

16 is in the blood correlates reasonably well with

17 what is in affected tissues. It is always a little

18 bit lower.

19 What I want to point out is this mom,

20 here, who had a daughter with 73 percent of this

21 mutation but a son with nothing. So, in a single

22 generation there is nearly complete segregation of

23 this mitochondrial sequence variant which happens

24 to be pathogenic and produced a disease.

25 This mom, here, gave 73 percent to her mom

172

1 and then she had four boys, one of whom had quite a

2 lot, 88 percent, enough to produce the disorder,

3 and some who were asymptomatic even though they

4 were carrying large proportions of the mutation

5 that produces the disease phenotype. That is

6 because of this so-called threshold phenomenon

7 here. These guys were not affected because they

8 didn\'t have enough mutant mitochondrial DNAs to

9 produce a biochemical defect in the cells. So,

10 another principle of mitochondrial genetics is that

11 you have to exceed a threshold of mutants in a cell

12 in order to produce a biochemical and, therefore a

13 clinical, phenotype.

14 It turns out for the vast majority of

15 mutations that we know about that that threshold is

16 very high. So, if you have 70 percent or 80

17 percent of these mutants you can sometimes look

18 completely normal, depending on how they are

19 distributed.

20 In order to study this, a postdoc in my

21 lab, Jack Jenuth, decided to make a mouse model.

22 There are no known natural heteroplasmic variants

23 in the inbred mouse population that we know about

24 so we had to construct one. The way we constructed

25 it was much along the same lines that we have been

173

1 talking about earlier today in humans. We found

2 two different common inbred strains of mice, one

3 which is called BALB and one which is called NZB,

4 that happen to differ at about 100 base pairs, 100

5 nucleotides between the two genomes. We simply

6 made, and we did this in both directions, a

7 cytoblast from one of them. We injected that under

8 the zona pelucida of the zygote here, and then we

9 electrofused.

10 We don\'t know exactly how much cytoplasm

11 we have put in here, but probably something on the

12 order of 10-15 percent, which are the numbers which

13 have been bandied around today. We fully expected

14 to get transmission of this mitochondrial DNA that

15 we put in here. In fact, we did.

16 So, we did this in a large number of

17 animals. I just want to point out that these are

18 the amino acid substitutions that are predicted by

19 the sequence differences between these two strains.

20 Here is NZB and here is another so-called old and

21 inbred strain which is the same as BALB. They are,

22 for the most part, at non-conserved sites in

23 evolution, and for the most part conservative

24 substitutions at those sites. So, in short,

25 polymorphisms. The only one that is not is this

174

1 cystine for what is either an arginine or a leucine

2 in this particular one, here. The rest look pretty

3 much like polymorphisms.

4 So, we thought we were putting in neutral

5 sequence variants. I must say, this is exactly

6 kind of parallel to the situation in ooplasmic

7 transferred humans. You are putting in a

8 mitochondrial DNA that might differ at 50 or 100

9 positions in the whole genome. You are putting in

10 the whole genome and this is very different than

11 mutations that arise in the germline or somatic

12 cells where you will get a single mutation on the

13 same haplotype background. So, it is quite a

14 different situation.

15 This is the first litter we got from one

16 of our founders. We isolated several female

17 founders. I can\'t remember exactly the range

18 because it is a few years ago that we got, but this

19 was pretty typical. We would get something like 3,

20 5 to 10 percent or so. Ten percent I think is the

21 most we ever saw of the donor mitochondrial DNA in

22 the founder females. We got that in most females.

23 So, the expectation is if you put in, at least in

24 the mouse model, 10-15 percent of cytoplasm you are

25 going to get out something which is not so

175

1 dissimilar from that. It is a little bit less.

2 Again, this is just a real eyeball estimate. We

3 haven\'t measured anything in terms of how much

4 cytoplasm we put in.

5 What we saw, and this is a very typical

6 pedigree, is that some animals had completely lost

7 that mitochondrial DNA and other animals in fact

8 looked like they had amplified it. In fact, I will

9 show you they don\'t amplify it, it is just a

10 stochastic phenomenon. So, in one single

11 generation, from a very small amount of

12 mitochondrial DNA that is added to this, and this

13 would be analogous to the human situation that we

14 are talking about, you could in the next generation

15 completely lose it or it can become more frequent

16 in the offspring from that mom.

17 This pretty much parallels what we have

18 seen in terms of transmission of pathogenic

19 mutations in human pedigrees with disease. So, we

20 wanted to sort out what the basis for this was, and

21 the way we did it was using single-cell PCR. We

22 simply went back in the female germline to find out

23 what the level of heteroplasmy was in mature

24 oocytes versus primary oocytes versus the

25 primordial germ cells that were going to give rise

176

1 to the entire female germline.

2 The conventional wisdom was, as we knew

3 from the observations, that there must be a

4 bottleneck here somewhere because it looked like

5 the 100,000 copies of mitochondrial DNA in the

6 mature oocyte were not being transmitted to the

7 next generation, if you will, because you couldn\'t

8 possibly get rapid fixation for a mutation if the

9 sample size of every generation was 100,000;

10 100,000 is a huge sample size. So, if ten percent

11 of those were carrying a particular mutation and

12 you sample the 100,000 in the next generation you

13 are going to get about ten percent, plus or minus a

14 little bit. So, it was pretty clear you must be

15 sampling, effectively sampling a much smaller

16 number and we wanted to determine what that number

17 was.

18 I will just show you two pieces of data

19 from that because it has been published years ago.

20 Using single-cell PCR, we measured the proportion

21 of heteroplasmy from the donor genome. In this

22 case we have added the BALB genome on the NZB

23 background. Here we are comparing what we see in

24 the mature oocytes sampled from the female that

25 produced these offspring. So, these are offspring

177

1 and oocytes from the same female mouse. You can

2 see that the distributions pretty much overlap,

3 meaning that by the time you are a mature oocyte

4 there is no significant segregation of the sequence

5 variant that we put in, that we donated to create

6 the founder up to the point of the offspring being

7 born.

8 We then went back a step further and we

9 looked at primary and mature oocytes in the same

10 animals by doing a little trick, and you can see

11 here that the distributions also overlap. So, even

12 by the time the primary oocytes are set aside,

13 which happens in fetal life, all of the segregation

14 of the sequence variants, of the heteroplasmy that

15 is going to happen, that is going to be important

16 in the babies that are born from this experiment,

17 has happened. So, if you were to measure the

18 heteroplasmy in the primary oocyte population, it

19 would predict what it would look like in the

20 offspring. Or, if you were to measure it in the

21 mature oocytes, it would also predict what it would

22 look like in the offspring.

23 I won\'t give you the rest of the data, but

24 we went back and collected primordial germ cells

25 and what we saw was that there was not that much

178

1 variation in the primordial germ cells, but by the

2 time they reached this stage, the primary oocyte

3 stage, all of the segregation has happened.

4 This is just a summary slide of what we

5 think is the life cycle of mitochondrial DNA in the

6 female germline. It is worth probably just

7 spending a couple of minutes to work through it,

8 just to refresh your memory about the things I have

9 told you.

10 The mature oocyte, at least in the mouse,

11 contains about 105 mitochondrial DNAs. The sperm

12 brings in 100; they are completely destroyed. So,

13 the zygote still has 105 mitochondrial DNAs and

14 then, as has been mentioned before, there is no

15 application of mitochondrial DNA in the early

16 stages of embryogenesis. So, up to the blastocyst

17 stage where the inter-cell mast cells are set

18 aside, there is a reduction in copy number of

19 mitochondrial DNA from about the 105 that is in the

20 oocyte, here, to about 103, 1000 per cell which is,

21 if you will, about the somatic number of

22 mitochondrial DNAs in your average, if you can say

23 there is an average, cell. But it reduces it from

24 the very large number that is in the oocyte to

25 here.

179

1 Then, when this implants we don\'t really

2 know what happens, but we suspect mitochondrial DNA

3 replication still doesn\'t restart and a small

4 population of cells, called the primordial germ

5 cells, are set aside. If you look at pictures of

6 these cells in all mammals where it has been done,

7 which is now in several species, they contain about

8 10 mitochondria. So, the mature oocyte had 100,000

9 copies of mitochondrial DNA and there are about 10

10 in these cells. So, this is where the bottleneck

11 is. It is a natural physical bottleneck in the

12 female germline. A very small number of

13 mitochondria with a small number of mitochondrial

14 DNAs, we think certainly less than 100 copies, are

15 transmitted outcome the next generation.

16 These cells then start migrating from

17 where they arise in the embryo to the general

18 ridge, and they give rise to the complete germline

19 population, called primary oocytes here, and at

20 this stage, here, all of the segregation that is

21 going to happen of the heteroplasmic sequence

22 variants has happened. It is not going to be

23 important further on. In mouse this might be

24 40,000 or 50,000 cells and six or seven million in

25 humans. Most of those die by atresia and there has

180

1 been some thought that perhaps that cell death

2 might be related to mitochondria, but I am going to

3 argue in a minute that I don\'t think that that is

4 important.

5 That is the state in the mouse. You can

6 actually use some statistics to calculate the

7 effective number of transmitting units between

8 generations, but it depends on what model you use.

9 So, that is just a statistic; it doesn\'t have any

10 physical reality.

11 What happens in humans? Here are six

12 common mutations, point mutations that occur in

13 humans. Patrick Chittering and his colleagues in

14 Newcastle analyzed the transmission of these

15 mutations in all the published pedigrees, and I

16 think this was published in the year 2000, all the

17 pedigrees that they could find in the literature.

18 They got rid of the proban so that they wouldn\'t

19 introduce a big ascertainment bias, and if the

20 transmission of the pathogenic mutations were the

21 same as the neutral polymorphic mutations that we

22 saw in the mouse, what you would expect is a

23 symmetrical distribution around zero, which would

24 be telling you that mom is just as likely to give

25 more mutant mitochondrial DNAs to her children as

181

1 less.

2 In fact, that is more or less what you see

3 here. It is a bit difficult to analyze this. This

4 is not a random sample. These are people who show

5 up in genetics clinics. The proban has been

6 eliminated to get rid of some of that ascertainment

7 bias but you can\'t completely get rid of it.

8 So, the point is that even though these

9 mutations are pathogenic, it looks like the

10 transmission of these mutations through the female

11 germline is stochastic, just like it is for the

12 neutral mutations that we studied in the mouse.

13 There is a single good example in the

14 literature actually looking at the distribution of

15 heteroplasmy in oocytes from a woman carrying a

16 pathogenic mutation, and here is what you find.

17 The mean proportion of this particular mutation of

18 the mom in her oocytes was something around 14

19 percent, and you can see that a large proportion of

20 her oocytes have completely lost it. Some had very

21 little and some had more. I could take any of the

22 mice that we looked at and plot the same thing

23 here, and these distributions would absolutely

24 overlap. In fact, if you used a statistic to

25 calculate the effective number of segregating units

182

1 that could give rise to this distribution, it is

2 indistinguishable in the mouse and human.

3 So, what we find in the mouse, as far as

4 we know, looks pretty similar to what is in the

5 human. So, the transmission of sequence variants

6 between generations appears to be largely

7 stochastic.

8 The effective number of mitochondrial DNAs

9 in the germline is small because of the bottleneck

10 that happens at the primordial germ cell stage.

11 That causes rapid segregation of sequence variants.

12 So, if an individual were to get, from whatever

13 mechanism, mitochondrial DNAs from a donor

14 individual, the next generation would now rapidly

15 segregate those. So, some of her offspring may

16 contain a lot of that particular sequence variant;

17 some may contain none.

18 I think the evidence that pathogenic

19 mutations are largely transmitted in a stochastic

20 fashion, which is almost indistinguishable from

21 what we see in the mouse, suggests that there is no

22 strong selection for mitochondrial function during

23 this process. So, what we are talking about here,

24 one of the aspects of what we are talking about

25 here today is whether the additional boost, if you

183

1 will, that could be given to a zygote from a small

2 amount of extra mitochondria there, I don\'t think

3 in the disease cases there is any reason to suspect

4 that that is true because there are lots of babies

5 born who are perfectly normal, who later get into

6 trouble, and they might get into trouble even in

7 the first few months of life but they may be

8 carrying 90 percent or 95 percent of mutant

9 mitochondrial DNAs. If those mutants are organized

10 as one per mitochondrion, then certainly those

11 mitochondria have very little function. So, I

12 think the point is you don\'t need much

13 mitochondrial function either to go through

14 oogenesis or to go through fetal life and have a

15 perfectly normal baby. Later on things can happen,

16 and they do in disease.

17 What about segregation? What about after,

18 in post natal life? Well, if you look at human

19 disease, there are any number of patterns of

20 segregation of pathogenic mutations. Let just

21 focus on two that I have on this slide, two common

22 mutations in tRNAs that are associated with

23 well-recognized clinical phenotypes. One is the

24 point mutation in lysine that is segregating in a

25 pedigree that I showed you earlier on. Here, it

184

1 looks like the affected individuals have high

2 proportions of this mutation in their skeletal

3 muscle, always over 85 percent. There is also a

4 high proportion in the blood which is usually about

5 ten percent less than what is in the muscle.

6 If you contrast that with another mutation

7 that is again a point mutation in the tRNA that

8 produces a completely different clinical phenotype,

9 it is all over the map in the blood, the proportion

10 of these mutations. There is a high proportion in

11 rapidly dividing epithelial cells and they can

12 collect in the urine. We don\'t know what that

13 looks like for this particular mutation, and it

14 decreases with age in the blood, whereas here we

15 don\'t really have any evidence that there is much

16 of a change in the proportion of these mutants with

17 life.

18 So, here are two different tRNA point

19 mutations. They have been worked on quite a lot.

20 We know that they produce translation defects in

21 mitochondria and, yet, the segregation of these

22 sequence variants, the pattern of segregation is

23 very different. You wouldn\'t really predict that

24 if the segregation pattern depended upon function,

25 mitochondrial dysfunction, if you will, in some

185

1 way. The pattern of segregation we know

2 determines, in muscle at least because this is the

3 tissue we have the most access to, what the muscle

4 phenotype looks like.

5 Here are muscle biopsies from two patients

6 that are carrying this tRNA lysine mutation that is

7 associated with MERF. One of them has this very

8 typical pathology called ragged red fibers. These

9 are grossly abnormal muscle fibers. If you stain

10 them for cytochrome oxidase activity, which is one

11 of the enzymes in the mitochondrial respiratory

12 chain, they are completely negative. They have

13 absolutely no activity. And, you have huge

14 proportions of these mutants here.

15 There was another patient who had

16 completely normal muscle biopsy, but the

17 proportion, if you just took a piece of muscle of

18 the mutation in both biopsies they are virtually

19 identical. So, how they distribute in muscle and

20 presumably other tissues determines, to a large

21 extent, what the phenotype or how serious the

22 biochemical phenotype is and presumably that

23 determines some of the clinical picture.

24 If we look again, comparing these same two

25 mutations with age, and Here Joanne Pulsion, in

186

1 Oxford, first did this plot and she said, well, if

2 there is no real pattern to what is going on in the

3 blood of patients carrying this particular 3243

4 mutation, maybe what is happening is that it is

5 changing in the blood and it is changing in the

6 muscle as well. So, the difference between what

7 you find in the muscle and the blood might be

8 linear with age. In fact, that is, indeed, what

9 she saw. Subsequent studies have shown that this

10 mutation does decrease in age with the blood and

11 probably increases with age in the muscle. The

12 mutation they talked about at 8344 doesn\'t do

13 anything with time. It is absolutely flat. So,

14 the evidence there is that what you get at birth

15 determines how sick you will be, whereas things can

16 change with other mutations.

17 So, that is all extremely confusing. You

18 are probably confused so here is the conclusion:

19 there is no simple relationship between the

20 oxidative phosphorylation dysfunction and the

21 pattern of segregation. There are lots of

22 different patterns and we don\'t understand what it

23 is. It could be some subtleties associated with

24 the mitochondrial dysfunction that mutations

25 produce, or it could be that some other nuclear

187

1 genes are controlling this whole process, and that

2 is what I want to talk about in the last little

3 bit.

4 To come back to our mouse model of

5 segregation, when Jack Jenuth was in the lab and we

6 had sorted out the transmission we thought, well,

7 that is kind of neat. We expected to see something

8 that was different and stochastic and we didn\'t and

9 we thought let\'s look in the tissues and see what

10 we see. We expect it would just be random there,

11 just like it was in the female germline; there

12 wouldn\'t be any particular pattern and sometimes

13 the proportion of this sequence variant would go up

14 and sometimes it would go down, and whatever tissue

15 we measured, it would be all over the map.

16 In fact, we saw something completely

17 different. If we looked at rapidly turning over

18 cells, like colonic crypts, we found out that that

19 was the segregation which turned over in the mouse

20 about once every 24 hours. That was completely

21 random. If we then looked later on at age, what we

22 found was that most of those crypts had completely

23 lost the mutation but a few were going towards

24 fixation of the mutation.

25 So, this is a picture like you could see

188

1 in a population in a textbook, and this is the

2 probability of fixation of a rare neutral mutation

3 in a randomly mating population, and this shows it

4 par excellence. So, the proportion of crypts that

5 should be fixing the mutation should be directly

6 proportional to the initial frequency of the

7 genotype in that population, which was about six

8 percent and that is about what we saw here. About

9 six or eight percent, I can\'t remember the exact

10 number were fixing but most of them had lost it by

11 pure random genetic drift so there was no selection

12 at all involved here.

13 If we looked in the brain, the heart and

14 skeletal muscle we couldn\'t even see any evidence

15 for that in the lifetime of the animal. Very

16 surprisingly, if we looked at a few other tissues

17 like the liver, the kidney, the spleen and the

18 peripheral blood we saw a very strange phenomenon

19 that had never been described before, and that was

20 tissue-specific and age-dependent selection for

21 different polymorphic mitochondrial DNA genotypes.

22 So, the liver and the kidney without exception

23 would select for the NZB mitochondrial DNA and the

24 BALB in the spleen, without exception would select

25 for the BALB, the opposite mitochondria in the same

189

1 animal. So, we didn\'t know what that meant.

2 Then a graduate student came to my lab,

3 Brendan Battersby, and picked up on this and he

4 wondered what was going on, what was selecting for

5 this particular sequence variants that we would

6 have predicted would not have functional

7 consequences, and that were transmitted through the

8 female germline as completely neutral variants in a

9 completely stochastic fashion.

10 So, he did some sing-cell PCR in the liver

11 and basically wanted to measure what the increased

12 fitness was for the NZB mitochondrial DNA which, as

13 I mentioned, always selects in the liver. By 18

14 months, most of the hepatocytes in the liver are

15 fixed for that, and it doesn\'t matter where they

16 started\--they could start at one percent or two

17 percent, if you look a year and a half later, they

18 are fixed. So, it happens at a constant rate. It

19 is independent of genotype frequency, which is very

20 mysterious if it were a function but it is not what

21 you would predict because of these threshold

22 phenomena.

23 Initially we said, well, that can\'t be

24 related to function. So, we measured this relative

25 fitness simply by comparing the initial and final

190

1 genotype frequencies in animals. The way we got

2 the initial frequency was to look at tissues where

3 these things weren\'t segregating. So, we assumed

4 that is what the animals were born with. By the

5 way, we have pretty good evidence\--we have data

6 actually to show that at birth all tissues are

7 pretty much the same in terms of the level of

8 heteroplasmy of these patients. So, if you get two

9 percent or five percent or ten percent, every

10 tissue has the same amount and you would predict

11 that amniocytes would have the same amount too.

12 There is a little bit of data in humans to suggest

13 that that is true.

14 So, if we measured this relative fitness

15 for this thing at two, four and nine months of age

16 we pretty much got the same answer. So, there is a

17 constant advantage for this genotype in the liver.

18 Every time mitochondrial DNA turns over this

19 particular genotype has a 14 percent advantage.

20 So, if you wait long enough, no matter where you

21 start, it will fix for that mitochondrial DNA

22 genotype.

23 If you look at oxygen consumption, a

24 fairly crude way to look at function of

25 mitochondria, this measures Vmax of the respiratory

191

1 chain and we couldn\'t see any difference. So, we

2 put essentially a very high proportion\--we couldn\'t

3 get 100 percent at the time we did these

4 experiments, NZB mitochondrial DNA on a BALB

5 nuclear background or 100 percent BALB on a BALB

6 nuclear background, and these are just measures of

7 mitochondrial respiratory chain function, and there

8 was no difference, which is what we also would have

9 predicted.

10 We then thought maybe it is just

11 replication, although the base substitutions in

12 these two different molecules did not affect any of

13 the known regulatory sites that have been defined

14 in the literature, but we thought maybe we will

15 measure replication and see if there is a

16 difference anyway. So, we did an in vivo

17 experiment where we injected with BrdU to label

18 mitochondrial DNA. We isolated mitochondrial DNA

19 and did a Southwestern analysis. So, the idea here

20 is that we are looking at incorporation of BrdU in

21 the mitochondrial DNA. We strip this and then we

22 just do a straight Southern to look at how much

23 mitochondrial DNA is there.

24 We have two different sequence variants

25 that we can recognize because there are restriction

192

1 fragments here. So, we have the NZB or the BALB

2 mitochondrial DNA. These are five different

3 animals obviously because we had to sacrifice them

4 at different times during the experiment, but the

5 number to compare is this versus this. So, if

6 there is no replicative advantage in this

7 experiment for this molecule, for the NZB molecule

8 over the BALB, then the incorporation rate of BrdU

9 should reflect the proportion of the genome that is

10 there and that is, in fact, the case. So, we have

11 no evidence that this is based on replication.

12 If you take hepatocytes out of these

13 animals and culture them you get exactly the

14 opposite effect. They now select for the BALB

15 mitochondrial DNA and not the NZB mitochondrial

16 DNA\--completely unexpected. We don\'t know why this

17 happens. It turns out it is not so easy to grow

18 mouse hepatocytes so I am not going to pursue that,

19 but you can actually calculate the relative

20 fitness. The copy number of mitochondrial DNA

21 drops when hepatocytes start to proliferate in

22 culture and the relative fitness goes up by about a

23 factor of two, but for the opposite mitochondrial

24 DNA.

25 So, this was all very mysterious. We got

193

1 a small advantage for the this NZB thing, not based

2 on function as near as we can tell. It is not

3 based strictly on replication. If we change the

4 mode of growth in the genotype the selection can be

5 opposite. So, what we concluded from all of this

6 was that selection must be acting at the level of

7 the genome itself. It doesn\'t have anything to do

8 with the function. It is not acting at the level

9 of the cell or the organelle; it is acting at the

10 level of the genome.

11 So, we hadn\'t made any progress with the

12 biochemistry here so we needed to do something

13 else, and my son summed this up very well. He was

14 working with his mom in the kitchen one day. He

15 was making a cake and he turned around and he said,

16 \"Daddy, you know, every experiment has a wet part

17 and a dry part.\"

18 Here is the dry part, the genetics. We

19 had to turn to genetics. So, the idea now was to

20 see if we could tease out a gene, a quantitative

21 trait locus that would determine whether or not you

22 would select for the BALB or the NZB mitochondrial

23 DNA in a tissue-specific way.

24 So, here is the breeding strategy but it

25 is a pretty typical thing you do in genetics. In

194

1 mouse genetics you just breed two inbred strains

2 together and look in the F2 generation and see if

3 the phenotype, and the phenotype here is

4 tissue-specific directional selection of

5 mitochondrial DNA, see if it segregates. In fact,

6 it does.

7 I will just show you the example in the

8 liver in the interest of time. This is a random

9 collection of about 50 animals. Actually it is a

10 little bit less, they are not all in the liver

11 here; from muscle in animals at 3 months or 12

12 months of age. These are F2 mice in this

13 experiment. The muscle is not doing anything

14 interesting but you can see that at 3 months there

15 is kind of a bimodal distribution in the liver, and

16 by 12 months they are completely fixed to that

17 genotype. I won\'t show the other tissues in the

18 interest of time.

19 We then calculated the relative fitness

20 using the same measure that we used before in these

21 animals and it looked to us like in the F2 animals

22 there were some that looked like the parents that

23 were selecting, strong selectors for the NZB

24 genotype; there were others that were weak

25 selectors for the NZB genotype; and then there were

195

1 some in the middle. This kind of looked like a one

2 to one distribution to us, which is suspiciously

3 Mendelian, and we thought maybe there is a single

4 strong gene that underlies this effect, a nuclear

5 gene which is controlling segregation behavior.

6 The idea would be that in the BALB animals

7 are behaving like a parent, and the animals that we

8 bred them with, which are actually a subspecies

9 called moos-moos castenius, were homozygous for the

10 castenius. So, we tested that. We did genome

11 scans that were done on all the tissues. I am just

12 going to summarize the data rather than going

13 through how we did this genetically because I don\'t

14 think anybody is particularly interested in those

15 details and if you are, you can ask me.

16 We did a genome scan at three months in

17 the liver, and what we found was a locus on mouse

18 chromosome 5, which a giant LOD score which, those

19 of you who know about LOD scores, that is pretty

20 big; I haven\'t seen too many that are bigger, that

21 explained almost 40 percent of the variants of that

22 genotype. In the kidney we saw another locus on

23 chromosome 2 that explained less. This acted in a

24 dominant way; this one was recessive. At this

25 stage we couldn\'t really score the phenotype in the

196

1 spleen accurately so we didn\'t really pick up any

2 linkage.

3 If we look at 12 months of age we don\'t

4 see any linkage in the liver because all the

5 animals are fixed so the segregation has all

6 happened. That is telling us that the BALB allele

7 is presumably a strong allele than the castenius

8 allele but eventually the castenius alleles catch

9 up. But we saw the same locus in chromosome 6 that

10 could account for 15-20 percent of the variants in

11 the kidney and the spleen and it was the same one,

12 the same locus. If you remember, these are going

13 in opposite directions. So, this is selecting the

14 NZB mitochondrial DNA; this is selecting the BALB

15 mitochondrial DNA.

16 We ended up with three quantitative trait

17 loci that explain a fair proportion, especially in

18 the liver, of this variation that seem to control

19 the selection of what we think are neutral variants

20 of mitochondrial DNA. How that happens is a

21 complete mystery so far. We don\'t know what they

22 look like. They are probably not molecules that

23 are involved in the replication of it because it

24 looks like the replication is the same. So, we

25 think they may be codes for molecules that are

197

1 involved in its maintenance.

2 So, this is a summary of the three

3 different loci on three different chromosomes. One

4 of them, in the liver, is very highly significant;

5 the other ones are significant by the normal

6 criteria used in quantitative trait analysis.

7 I will just conclude, just to sum this

8 whole thing up, the transmission of these sequence

9 variants in the germline, as I said, looks like it

10 is completely stochastic to us. There doesn\'t seem

11 to be any bias one way or another. We have now

12 actually bred animals completely in the other

13 direction. So, we have put in a couple of percent

14 of the NZB or the BALB\--now we are just doing it

15 with NZB on a BALB background into founder females

16 and we can get 100 percent if we just breed for a

17 few generations of NZB on a BALB background

18 starting out with two. So, it doesn\'t matter where

19 you start from. Because it rapidly segregates

20 through the germline in a stochastic way, you can

21 just pick animals that have a high percentage and

22 the offspring from those mothers are going to have

23 a higher percentage, and in about three or four

24 generations you can get 100 percent the other way.

25 There is tissue-specific nuclear genetic

198

1 control of this segregation process which does not

2 seem to be based strictly on replication of the

3 molecules or on function of the molecules, which is

4 very surprising, and we think, but this is not just

5 hand waving, that perhaps the genes that code for

6 these molecules might be involved in the

7 organization of mitochondrial DNA in the nucleoid.

8 There could be a lot of other things and we are now

9 trying to clone those.

10 In closing, I just want to acknowledge the

11 two people in my lab who have done most of this

12 work, two very talented students, a graduate

13 student, Brendan Battersby and a postdoc who

14 started it, Jack Jenuth. Thanks very much.

15 DR. SALOMON: I never know whether to clap

16 or not, but as we didn\'t clap before\--

17 \[Laughter\]

18 \--that was a very nice talk. Just in

19 terms of trying to be efficient with time, given

20 that the next talk is also about mitochondria and

21 you are sitting on the panel with us, unless

22 someone has a question which just totally be out of

23 context and they just have to ask it now\--I don\'t

24 see anyone jumping up because of the way I put

25 that, I guess\--I would like to go on and have Dr.

199

1 Van Blerkom give his talk and then what I think we

2 need to do is stop and talk a little bit about what

3 does this tell us now about mitochondria and how

4 this specifically relates back to safety and other

5 issues with respect to ooplasm transfer.

6 Mitochondrial Function and Inheritance Patterns

7 in Early Human Embryos

8 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Thank you very much.

9 Let\'s see if I can put a number of different

10 aspects of human development and mitochondrial

11 function, other than necessarily respiratory

12 function, in the context of what this is all about,

13 which has to do with cytoplasmic transfer. So, I

14 would like to talk a little bit about the oocyte,

15 since we are really dealing with the human, and the

16 types of information that we can gather from

17 available studies on the behavior of oocytes and

18 their biology.

19 In the human this is what we deal with

20 initially in the IVF lab, which is the mast cells,

21 the cells surrounding cell structure, about 100

22 microns in diameter, which is the oocyte. You can

23 see it right here. What we know now from a fairly

24 substantial amount of biochemical and physiological

25 studies is that, in large measure, the potential of

200

1 this oocyte that is here, its developmental

2 competence is largely determined by factors that

3 have occurred before this egg has even been

4 ovulated. So, influences to which this oocyte is

5 exposed in the follicle during oogenesis actually

6 largely determine its competency after

7 fertilization. We know this from studies of

8 biochemistry on follicles, the physiology of blood

9 flow, some of which have been used as predictors of

10 oocyte competence in trying to select oocytes such

11 as these from many that may be retrieved from an

12 IVF procedure.

13 The next slide shows a picture of an

14 oocyte, and here is the problem. I mean, when you

15 look at this egg here, this human oocyte it is

16 normal in appearance. It has a polar body and

17 everything else that it should have. Most eggs

18 look equivalent but their potential is different.

19 We know that some of these eggs will be competent

20 to go on and divide normally and implant. Others

21 that look the same don\'t. This is the notion of

22 why you might want to rescue the cytoplasm, or

23 there may be a cytoplasmic defect of some sort in

24 these eggs that render them incompetent.

25 One of the things that Jacques Cohen

201

1 mentioned, of course, is the fact that with

2 increased maternal age the frequency of aneuploidy,

3 the frequency of chromosomal dysfunctions, as well

4 as dysfunctions in the organization of the spindle

5 to which these chromosomes are attached actually

6 increases substantially. So, a large number of

7 oocytes that exist in women of advanced

8 reproductive age will not be rescued by any means

9 because the chromosomal abnormalities, and

10 spindles, structural abnormalities exist and they

11 will not be fixable.

12 But in other cases, especially for eggs of

13 older women, they look entirely normal and they

14 really are indistinguishable from oocytes of

15 younger women. But in large measure, whatever has

16 happened prior to this egg meeting sperm, which

17 this particular egg has not, things have happened

18 to this egg which largely determine its competence,

19 and it is the question of whether cytoplasm

20 transfer or other procedures actually will be able

21 to rescue whatever insults have been imposed on an

22 egg prior to its meeting with the sperm.

23 This slide just shows examples of an egg.

24 Here is a two-cell embryo, starting off perfectly

25 normal except this has multiple nuclei. One of the

202

1 features that might be of interest to some in this

2 case, because the issues of chromosomal segregation

3 and additional chromosomal additions from

4 cytoplasmic transfer came up, is the fact that the

5 early human embryo, especially at the one- and

6 two-cell stage, has unique capacity actually to

7 encapsulate individual chromosomes in a nuclear

8 membrane. So, you can get multiple nuclei that

9 occur in these embryos, some of which you can show

10 have one or two chromosomes and others have more,

11 but these eggs tend to be developmentally lethal.

12 So the ectopic transmission of the chromosome may

13 or may not be an important issue in cytoplasmic

14 transfer.

15 This slide shows an example of an embryo

16 which, as you have heard, is fragmented. You can

17 see some fragments here. The severity differs

18 between embryos within the same cohort so you can

19 have 12 or 15 embryos. Some of them have much more

20 extensive fragmentation, some have none. So, it is

21 an embryo-specific event. Some patients have all

22 their embryos fragment like this, which is

23 relatively rare, but it is common to see

24 fragmentation of this sort.

25 The problem is, is this rescuable? Is it

203

1 a problem in terms of the ability of the embryo to

2 implant? Here again, as Jacques mentioned and

3 others have shown, in fact the fragmentation

4 patterns seen at a static image such as a four-cell

5 stage can change.

6 So, embryos that had this fragmentation

7 that looked relatively severe early, in fact, go to

8 the blastocyst and hatch and, in fact, implant. I

9 don\'t show baby pictures but I do show embryo

10 pictures, and this is a little girl that was born

11 about two years ago.

12 So, we have the situation where we can see

13 dysmorphologies and some may be of clinical

14 significance and others are not. There is recent

15 work that shows that some types of patterns of

16 fragmentation are transient; that they exist in one

17 stage and later on in development seem to

18 disappear. So, it is not clear whether subjective

19 criteria looking at embryos is actually predictive

20 of competence. In some cases, obviously, if there

21 are no cells left that is a problem.

22 So, you have to look in terms of sort of

23 the molecular mechanisms that take place in eggs

24 where their competence may be affected by

25 influences that they have experienced.

204

1 This slide tells us a little something

2 about eggs in terms of mitochondria. What you see

3 here is a pronuclear human egg. These are the two

4 nuclei and these little dots here are mitochondria.

5 I always grew up with the notion that, in fact, the

6 number of mitochondria in human eggs was about

7 150,000, although that is not based on any

8 morphometric analysis but that is about the right

9 number. All these dots here are, in fact, what we

10 are talking about, mitochondria.

11 One of the interesting things about

12 mitochondria both in the human and in the mouse,

13 and in other systems as well, is the fact that

14 their distribution is not static, that during

15 different stages of oocyte maturation, especially

16 before the egg comes out of the follicle as well as

17 during embryogenesis, there is a lot of spatial

18 remodeling of the cytoplasm. These mitochondria

19 can move around and have different locations and

20 different positions based on what the cell is

21 doing.

22 If we look at this slide, it gives you an

23 example of mitochondria in human at the electron

24 microscope level. These guys here, the little dots

25 are at the surface of the cell. It is upside down

205

1 but here are the mitochondria. They are fairly

2 unusual when compared to somatic cell mitochondria.

3 These are relatively undeveloped. They are not in

4 a dormant state but developmentally and in terms of

5 their differentiation they are in a more primitive

6 state. But they do move around. During oogenesis

7 for example, in the mouse and other rodents they

8 migrate around the nucleus. You can barely see

9 that here but they do. They form interesting

10 patterns that extend from the plasma membrane down

11 to the nuclear membrane, shown here, almost arrays

12 which we and others have suggested may be important

13 in certain signal transduction pathways. So, they

14 are unusual. Their distribution is not static, and

15 they undergo remodeling as the embryo and oocyte

16 progress.

17 This slide shows this a little more here,

18 mitochondria at higher magnifications, a two-cell

19 embryo in the human. Their spherical structure is

20 about half a micron in diameter, and they remain

21 this way in a pretty undeveloped state until fairly

22 late in the pre-implantation period as the embryo

23 becomes a blastocyst. Some of these then will

24 start to change into the more orthodox

25 configuration that one sees in somatic cells, but

206

1 these are really unique structures.

2 This slide just shows some rearrangements

3 that occur fairly rapidly during oocyte maturation.

4 This is a mouse oocyte that is stained, the

5 mitochondria are stained with a mitochondrial

6 specific fluorescent probe, and what happens is

7 that as the oocyte matures, in this case in vitro,

8 mitochondria translocate and move around towards

9 the center of the cell around the nuclear region to

10 form a very compact structure here. Then, during

11 the first miosis they start to redistribute

12 themselves and they go back to a more or less

13 uniform distribution at metaphase II, which is when

14 the oocyte is ovulated.

15 These are dynamic structures. They are

16 dynamic in their orientation and organization, and

17 they undergo spatial remodeling as eggs and embryos

18 divide. This is maybe actually an important

19 feature in determinants of the oocyte\'s competence

20 while the oocyte is still in the ovary. In other

21 words, how these organelles are located and

22 distributed may actually be fairly important.

23 Their distribution, shown in this slide,

24 is directed by microtubules in many species, in

25 this case the mouse, and you can see this is the

207

1 central region where chromosomes are maturing,

2 oocytes are forming. These are mitochondria that

3 have translocated from around the cytoplasm towards

4 this rim or ring of mitochondria around the nuclear

5 region. Here are microtubules and the

6 mitochondria, we think, migrate as in other cells

7 and are translocated along microtubular paths. So,

8 the organization of the cytoplasm in terms of its

9 microtubular organization may, in fact, be a very

10 important determinant of how mitochondria are

11 distributed, and whether the distribution of

12 mitochondria in space and time, in fact, turns out

13 to be determinant of competence.

14 This slide shows another example of

15 presumed mitochondrial function, and this has to do

16 with energy. We have heard, and it is true, that

17 energy may not be a critical component of

18 competence because it is clear that while you have

19 mutations in respiratory mitochondria the embryos

20 develop quite normally, otherwise they wouldn\'t be

21 individuals that carry this particular respiratory

22 mutations in their mitochondria.

23 In this type of experiment, what we did in

24 the mouse was to knock down mitochondrial

25 respiration substantially and we found that you

208

1 could reduce mitochondrial respiration by about 60

2 percent and still get the eggs to mature normally.

3 They fertilize in vitro, but what is interesting

4 about this particular experiment is the fact that

5 when these embryos reach pre-implantation stages

6 they start to die off. This may or may not be a

7 mitochondrial effect. It may be a downstream toxic

8 effect of this treatment which was done days before

9 at the oocyte level. But the point is that we were

10 able to establish here that, in fact, there was a

11 downstream consequence during embryogenesis, early

12 embryogenesis of knocking down respiration at the

13 beginnings of maturation in vitro which is, in this

14 case the germinal vesicle stage.

15 This experiment showed that at zero hours

16 in culture knocking down mitochondrial respiration

17 actually had no effect on maturation, which is what

18 would occur in the ovary prior to ovulation,

19 fertilization cleavage but did progressively have

20 effects on the embryo\'s ability to develop to the

21 blastocyst stage and implant. So, it was an effect

22 that was actually seen four or five days later.

23 In the case of the human, one of the

24 proposed effects of mitochondria and why would

25 mitochondrial transfer or cytoplasmic transfer if

209

1 it involves mitochondria be beneficial? One is ATP

2 generation during pre-compaction stages seems to be

3 respiratorily driven rather than driven by

4 glycolysis. So, the early stages seem to be

5 requiring some level of mitochondrial input. It is

6 not clear in the human whether glycolysis in the

7 presence of mitochondrial defects that affect

8 respiration can be up-regulated to supply enough

9 ATP.

10 Of course, mitochondrial replication

11 begins after implantation. So the putative effects

12 of mitochondrial dysfunctions that have been

13 suggested, not proven yet but suggested for early

14 human development which may be rescuable is

15 cytochrome C release if perhaps the mitochondria

16 are damaged resulting in apoptosis; reactive oxygen

17 species generation which may be a toxic effect from

18 mitochondrial dysfunction of some sort that hasn\'t

19 been identified; or low ATP production from

20 metabolically incompetent mitochondria. These have

21 been proposed but not clearly identified.

22 This slide suggests something that is

23 really quite interesting. This asks the basic

24 question. As I said, I always grew up with the

25 notion that there were about 150,000 mitochondria

210

1 and a number of years ago we approached this

2 problem for actually completely different reasons,

3 looking at the question of how many mitochondrial

4 DNA copies were present and we looked at a

5 particular mitochondrial gene at that time using

6 PCR, and we had quite a few oocytes from gift

7 procedures that were left over. One of the things

8 that we saw and tried to quantitate is that the

9 number of copies of this participant mitochondrial

10 gene, in fact, ranged from about 30,000 upwards

11 to\--I don\'t remember the actual number but

12 something like 400,000 or 500,000. We were seeing

13 variations in the number of mitochondrial DNA

14 copies per oocyte within the same patient.

15 In that particular situation, what we were

16 seeing is almost an order of magnitude difference

17 in the number of mitochondrial DNA copies in

18 oocytes from the same patient. We never did

19 anything with this data because, actually, I simply

20 didn\'t believe it. I didn\'t believe that you could

21 get that variability.

22 But recently work has come out from a

23 number of groups, including Jacques Cohen and

24 others, who have looked at the number of

25 mitochondrial DNA copies, and the number is about

211

1 20,000 to over 600,000, 700,000. Now, does that

2 mean that an oocyte that looks the same, that you

3 cannot distinguish at the light microscope level,

4 one from the other, that in one case you have

5 20,000 mitochondria if there is one mitochondrial

6 DNA copy per egg all the way up to 800,000? Which

7 is a problem because if that is the case, then if

8 there is one mitochondrial DNA copy per

9 mitochondria you are dealing with eggs that look

10 identical at the light microscope level from the

11 same patient, whether it is a patient or a donor,

12 where the number of mitochondria can differ by an

13 order of magnitude?

14 If that is the case, then going into an

15 egg with a pipet and removing cytoplasm could be

16 problematic because you cannot make the assumption

17 that the number of mitochondria that are being

18 transferred are the same. In other words, from egg

19 to egg or from patient to patient. That is a real

20 issue and that has to be addressed.

21 So, it looks like the number of

22 mitochondria, in fact, seem to vary, at least

23 mitochondrial DNA copy number almost by an order of

24 magnitude and that is not predictable by any

25 morphology or by any light microscopic inspection.

212

1 So, this is a problem, potentially. It is

2 surprising in the human, but it may not be so

3 surprising as I will show you in the next slide.

4 This slide basically shows a picture of an

5 egg, and this is just stained for mitochondria and,

6 again, here we see some interesting differences.

7 In this particular egg, and these eggs are from the

8 same patient, pretty much the fluorescence is

9 uniformly distributed, very little in this case in

10 the polar body but pretty well uniformly

11 distributed, and we can quantitate and do all sorts

12 of interesting measurements about the fluorescence

13 intensity and correlate this with mitochondrial

14 numbers, the point being that here is one egg that

15 is stained.

16 The next egg from that same patient shows

17 something a little bit different. This is not an

18 artifact of the procedure or the staining. These

19 are live eggs. What has happened here is that, in

20 fact, there are regions of this particular

21 cytoplasm where mitochondria are absent. This is

22 something that we consistently see looking at eggs,

23 that you have regional differentiation and regional

24 specialization of mitochondrial distributions that

25 are not predicted by any other means, other than

213

1 this. So, you cannot say that going into this

2 particular region of the cytoplasm will produce an

3 equivalent number going into this region of the

4 cytoplasm. So, now we have the further complexity

5 of having perhaps a difference in an order of

6 magnitude or certainly mitochondrial DNA numbers

7 and now we have regional specializations in terms

8 of distribution within the cytoplasm that is not

9 predicted by just looking at morphology.

10 This slide shows another example of this

11 where, in fact, the relative fluorescence intensity

12 is quite reduced. So, there may be something to

13 correlating fluorescence intensity by this method

14 and mitochondrial DNA numbers, except that in order

15 to do that you have to destroy the egg, which means

16 it is not very useful other than for experimental

17 purposes.

18 This slide shows something about energy

19 distributions in human eggs. This is some old data

20 that we published a number of years ago. It simply

21 asks a basic question, what is the ATP content of

22 eggs in the same cohort? A very simple-minded

23 question. Just look at the distribution. It is

24 quite remarkable. These are eggs that were gotten

25 by stimulation for IVF in the same way we normally

214

1 do it, and the distribution was over an order of

2 magnitude. Again, this was one of these puzzling

3 findings, except that in terms of outcome, when we

4 had eggs that were left over, excess donated, that

5 were in the high range of ATP content, those tended

6 to be the women that got pregnant from embryos that

7 were transferred in their cycles. Those that had a

8 preponderance of low ATP content eggs, when we

9 transferred their embryos, even though they were

10 morphologically identical to ones from high ATP

11 cohorts, in fact they rarely got pregnant.

12 So, here you have a spectrum of an order

13 of magnitude difference in ATP content, and both

14 differences within cohorts and between cohorts of

15 patients. So, in this case we now have the

16 complexity of saying we now know that not only do

17 we have a huge variability in mitochondrial DNA

18 content, we may have a mitochondrial numbers

19 variability in terms of how actual mitochondria are

20 in an egg, which is not detectable just by looking

21 at it, and now we have energy differences that may

22 be related either to mitochondria numbers or to

23 something else that is going on in these particular

24 cells.

25 So, it is not just simple to say that, in

215

1 fact, when you have a mitochondrial basis for

2 certain types of infertility that, in fact, it is

3 related strictly to mitochondria because there are

4 too many complex, confounding issues with

5 mitochondria alone that are important.

6 This slide just sort of summarizes this.

7 The size of the mitochondrial complement, how many

8 mitochondria really are there? We really don\'t

9 know how mitochondria there are in human oocyte.

10 The variability in mitochondrial DNA content is

11 important, but how does it relate to the size of

12 the complement? And, is the size of the complement

13 actually important? Differential spatial

14 distribution at the pronuclear state, and I will

15 talk a little bit about that, and disproportionate

16 inheritance during cleavage, which is another issue

17 in terms of how we understand the relationship

18 between mitochondria, if any, and development.

19 This is shown on this slide. I think I

20 will just pass this one up. Here, we started

21 looking at how mitochondria are spatial distributed

22 within the egg and in the early embryo. This is

23 one of the earlier pictures that we have seen from

24 looking at an analysis of the mitochondrial

25 distribution. Here are the two pronuclei, one here

216

1 and one there. Here is the mitochondria around it.

2 What you see here is the relative intensity of how

3 many mitochondria are present, but what is

4 particularly interesting about this guy is the fact

5 that the mitochondria are asymmetrically

6 distributed in the pronuclear stage. This is just

7 before cell division.

8 So, we followed this along in quite a few

9 embryos from the pronuclear stage onward. I will

10 just summarize the results. This basically says

11 that you have symmetrical and asymmetrical

12 distributions. Here are mitochondria around the

13 pronuclei from the one-cell stage, in a cross

14 section. The point being that the segregation, at

15 least the inheritance of the mitochondria at the

16 one-cell stage, the pattern or the spatial

17 distribution at the one-cell stage determines in

18 large measure the proportion of mitochondria that

19 are distributed at the first cell division in the

20 human.

21 So, we follow this along and we see

22 embryos that have fairly good and equivalent

23 segregation, others where the segregation is

24 disproportionate. We can do this both by looking

25 at mitochondrial DNA copy numbers as well as by

217

1 metabolism.

2 Just to show you some examples of that,

3 here you have relatively unusual segregation.

4 Again, all of these were first examined at the

5 pronuclear stage, the one-cell stage, and then

6 subsequently. What we found is that you can have

7 different distributions. For example, a normal

8 appearing embryo, absolutely normal appearing, can

9 have some cells where you have relatively high,

10 relatively moderate and relatively low inheritance.

11 We can, again, quantify this in a number of ways

12 reflect the intensity of fluorescence. At the

13 eight-cell stage in perfectly normal embryo you

14 have some cells that have relatively few

15 mitochondria, others that have inherited quite a

16 few.

17 The consequence of this is that cells that

18 have under-representation of mitochondria tend to

19 die. They tend to divide more slowly, which may be

20 what Jacques Cohen described as the slowly dividing

21 embryos but, nevertheless, if there are enough

22 cells that have inherited a fairly reasonable

23 amount or close to normal amounts, the embryo is

24 still competent.

25 So here, just the organization of

218

1 mitochondria and their distribution can have

2 profound effects on embryo development and

3 competence, and that is shown on this slide, where

4 you have, for example, blastomeres of an eight-cell

5 stage, where you have mitochondria that are

6 relatively evenly distributed. So, here we have

7 relatively normal, even distribution.

8 This slide shows examples where that

9 distribution actually is quite asymmetric, again,

10 traceable back to the one-cell stage leaving

11 several cells that are deficient. These cells

12 eventually lyse and disappear. Other cells that

13 are deficient, such as this one, simply don\'t

14 divide again and remain in that position.

15 So, not only do we have the situation

16 where we have differences in mitochondrial number

17 initially present in the oocyte, but now we also

18 have the complexity of how these mitochondria are

19 distributed at cell division, which is not

20 necessarily uniform. It is not an equivalent

21 distribution.

22 This slide just simply shows the basis of

23 this, and we think a lot of this has to do with

24 microtubules. These are mitochondria that you can

25 see. Most eggs and embryos will slide along

219

1 microtubular tracks. It is the position of the

2 microtubules and their organization, both at the

3 one-cell level and multi-cell level, that we think

4 determines the proportion or uniqueness of

5 segregation whether it is even or disproportionate

6 among blastomeres.

7 This slide is an example of what is called

8 a central zonal defect. What has happened here is

9 that you normally see mitochondrial clustering

10 around microtubules. In this case there are no

11 microtubules because he has a central zonal defect

12 and there is no migration of the mitochondria.

13 This comes to another point, that I will

14 end with, and that has to do with the notion of

15 cytoplasmic transfer. We have talked about and

16 published work on mitochondrial transfusions, going

17 from one oocyte to another and I just want to show

18 you some of the complications that come in with

19 this type of approach to cytoplasmic transfer,

20 something that needs also to be considered.

21 In this method what we have done, we have

22 segregated pretty much all the mitochondria into

23 one compartment. This was an original oocyte where

24 you can see one compartment here. This contains

25 DNA and here are the mitochondria.

220

1 This slide shows a different method. Here

2 is a cytoblast. Here is the nucleoblast which is

3 very, very efficient in mitochondria. This is very

4 heavy. So, we did a number of experiments, taking

5 by micropipet, mitochondria from this enriched

6 fraction and asking a very simple question, what

7 happened to it.

8 That is shown in the next series of

9 slides. Here what you see is the case of putting

10 mitochondria that are labeled into a germinal

11 vesicle stage oocyte, and this cloud material,

12 here, is about five to ten hours after mitochondria

13 were injected as a bolus, right around here. This

14 is stained both for mitochondria and nuclear DNA.

15 This is the nucleus of the germinal vesicle and

16 this was, with think, the injected mitochondria.

17 This is shown in other slides. This slide

18 shows different variations. Here is an oocyte

19 injected at an earlier stage of maturation, after

20 the germinal vesicle. These are the labeled

21 mitochondria and, in fact, some of those

22 mitochondria have gotten quite heavily into the

23 first polar body. So, this shows that, yes, you

24 can inject mitochondria and many hours later you

25 can detect them and they seem to be pretty well

221

1 segregated or at least spatially oriented in a sort

2 of uniform manner, except it again is egg specific.

3 So, if we look at this slide, it just

4 shows another example where mitochondria were

5 placed in the center of the egg. These are stained

6 mitochondria so the resident mitochondria are not

7 visible. In this case, here is a polar body but

8 there was virtually no detectable segregation of

9 mitochondria into this polar body. So, sometimes

10 they are lost; sometimes they are not. But in most

11 cases they seem to sort of evenly distribute when

12 injected early in the maturation phase, that is,

13 well before the time that we would consider doing

14 this in the human, which is after ovulation where

15 the egg is mature.

16 Now, if we inject mature eggs, here is the

17 issue. These are metaphase II eggs. In this case,

18 what has been done is to inject mitochondria in

19 different places, here, here and here, and watch

20 what happens. In fact, in some cases the

21 mitochondria simply stay in one position. There is

22 no spatial remodeling or redistribution. If we

23 activate these eggs, not by fertilization but so

24 that they divide, in fact, the segregation is

25 entirely asymmetric. One cell will have a fairly

222

1 substantial, disproportionately high distribution

2 of the injected mitochondria, others will not.

3 Here is another example of this. Here you

4 can see three zones of mitochondria that were

5 injected at the metaphase II stage and they stayed

6 in place. They did not move in this particular

7 egg.

8 This shows another example where actually

9 they did move. Here we put mitochondria in the

10 center and a little bit later there were, in fact,

11 a lot in the center but they had actually migrated

12 to the cortex of the egg as well.

13 This slide shows another pattern where

14 they were injected in the subcortical location and

15 pretty much stayed there. Again, when you activate

16 these eggs you get unequal segregation. We have

17 not yet seen in any of our eggs that we have

18 examined by this method of injection equivalent

19 segregation. It is all asymmetrical, which is a

20 problem in terms of how mitochondria may, in fact,

21 find their way into one-cell lineage or placenta or

22 perhaps different tissues in the fetus.

23 I just want to end, if I have two more

24 minutes, and I just want to talk about one

25 potential other function of mitochondria early in

223

1 development that has very little to do with

2 metabolism. This has to do with the notion of

3 involvement in calcium signaling or in ionic

4 signaling.

5 This is a human egg that is stained with a

6 probe that picks up mitochondria that are high

7 polarized. These are mitochondria that have a high

8 membrane potential. We think these are actively

9 involved in other cells in calcium signaling. What

10 you are seeing here are these little dots or the

11 high polarized mitochondria. They are at the

12 cortex. What we think happens is that at

13 fertilization these mitochondria participate in an

14 important way in calcium modulation.

15 Shown in this slide is that when we

16 actually activate these eggs, in fact you get a

17 very early calcium discharge which we have now been

18 able to show comes from those mitochondria. We

19 think this discharge is actually very important in

20 terms of subsequent signal transduction pathways

21 that occur later on in development, which are

22 required for normal gene activation and normal

23 development.

24 This slide shows an example\--well, you

25 can\'t see it but there are very few asymmetric high

224

1 polarized mitochondria. When we activate this egg,

2 we see the following, which simply shows that, in

3 fact, the signaling is restricted to one part of

4 the egg.

5 This slide shows where, in fact, there are

6 no detectable, in the egg, high polarized

7 mitochondria. They are only found in the polar

8 body. When we activate these eggs we get nothing.

9 So, in addition to metabolic and in

10 addition to other functions that these mitochondria

11 may have, they also appear to be involved in early

12 events in calcium signaling which we think actually

13 turn out to be important in setting up the right

14 signaling transduction pathways in the cytoplasm as

15 the egg and embryo develops. It is an influence on

16 the normality of development. So, there are a

17 number of different functions that these organelles

18 are involved in, other perhaps than metabolic,

19 which are important in competence determination.

20 Thank you.

21 Question and Answer

22 DR. SALOMON: Thank you very much for a

23 very interesting topic. We should have a

24 discussion of sort of mitochondria per se for a few

25 minutes. As a scientist, I have fifty questions

225

1 here that are just about mitochondria, but you

2 don\'t need to waste your valuable time answering

3 those. It is obviously a fascinating area.

4 There are a number of questions that

5 specifically relate to the issues on the table

6 today. So, just to kind of start, one of the

7 things I heard was that this is pretty safe because

8 there is a very high threshold for dysfunctional

9 mitochondria and that would be a safety feature. I

10 am just trying to get little key things here, but

11 that is something I got.

12 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: Yes, I think that is

13 true. The other safety feature in the animal

14 experiments that we have, we really haven\'t seen

15 any evidence that the animals are sick in any way.

16 We haven\'t done careful studies in

17 histopathological things, behavioral tests or

18 anything, but we have had this colony since 1995, a

19 colony of heteroplasmic animals, and done all these

20 kinds of different genetic experiments and

21 different back crosses or half a dozen other

22 nuclear backgrounds and we have really never seen

23 anything unusual. I mean, we haven\'t been looking

24 for it either so we haven\'t done a careful analysis

25 but the mice look pretty normal.

226

1 DR. SALOMON: Good.

2 DR. CASPER: From the other point of view

3 then, it was suggested earlier this morning that

4 you might be able to treat mitochondrial diseases

5 by mitochondrial transfer. In view of the

6 stochastic segregation that happens, is that

7 possible to actually happen from generation to

8 generation, or would it only be feasible in the

9 actual injected offspring?

10 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I am not quite sure I

11 understand the question. The transmission is

12 stochastic so if you look, for instance, at the

13 distribution of mutant mitochondrial DNA in the

14 ovary of the woman where about 50 or 60 oocytes are

15 available, some of them have no mitochondrial DNA

16 mutations at all. So, in that case, I think if you

17 were going to treat the disease, the best option

18 would be to look for an oocyte that didn\'t have any

19 mitochondrial DNA mutations at all. If you were to

20 completely remove that cytoplasm and then put in

21 donor cytoplasm, the prediction would be that to

22 the extent that you left the recipient cytoplasm in

23 there you would get the same kind of stochastic

24 transmission to the next generation. But having

25 taken out most of it, the chances are that the

227

1 child, if it developed in that egg, would have

2 mostly donor mitochondrial DNA and not very many

3 from mom, but in the next generation in the female

4 that would segregate.

5 DR. CASPER: In other words, if you had an

6 embryo that would be heteroplasmic with a mutation

7 as well as normal mitochondrial DNA, you could

8 change the threshold by putting in more normal

9 mitochondria. Is that right?

10 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: Probably, yes. It is

11 simply stochastic; it is a numbers game so you can

12 treat this as a bowl of marbles, black and white

13 marbles. The sample size with determine the rate

14 of segregation. So, if you actually do the

15 statistic, you can calculate in the mice under a

16 particular model the effective number of

17 segregating units as about 200 in the next

18 generation, and you can figure out, given the

19 sample size of 200, that you would get

20 distributions like I showed you.

21 DR. MULLIGAN: On that point, if you had

22 diseased mitochondria that behaves like whatever

23 the mouse strain, wouldn\'t that be a way of

24 actually promoting disease because you would

25 actually over a time course\--I mean, if you were so

228

1 unlucky that the diseased mitochondria also had the

2 same property that is the property that allows you

3 to selectively reconstitute cells, wouldn\'t that be

4 a way to amplify that?

5 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: Absolutely, and that is

6 probably what happens in many of the diseases,

7 probably not all, but there is pretty good evidence

8 for directional increases in the mutant

9 mitochondrial DNAs in many diseases, in muscle

10 tissue for instance. The idea there is that the

11 muscle cell is continuously reading out the

12 oxidative phosphorylation capacity. So, if you

13 decided you wanted to be a marathon runner

14 tomorrow\--maybe you are today, I don\'t know\--but if

15 you wanted to be, you can up-regulate the number of

16 mitochondria in your post-mitotic muscle cells. We

17 don\'t really understand the nature of the signals

18 that are involved in that pathway. Then, if you

19 decide you don\'t want to run a race it will go

20 down.

21 The thinking is, at least my thinking on

22 this is that the selection of that occurs at the

23 level of organelles. So, some signals are given at

24 the organelles and that somehow feeds back to the

25 nucleus. Factors are produced to give you more

229

1 mitochondria. If you now have an organelle that

2 has mutant mitochondrial DNA the same signals go

3 back. It looks like overworked mitochondria. It

4 looks like it is running a marathon. In fact, it

5 is just the mutation. The nucleus doesn\'t know

6 that. What it does is make more of those guys and

7 so it makes more of the bad ones. So, there is

8 kind of a positive feedback loop. It doesn\'t seem

9 to happen in the context of every mutation so it

10 isn\'t a completely general phenomenon, but it

11 certainly could be a problem.

12 DR. MULLIGAN: In this concept of loading

13 with an excess of certain type, what is the role of

14 the decay of the existing mitochondria? That is,

15 in principle, there is a competition and there is a

16 fixed number of mitochondria that should be in this

17 particular kind of cell, then whatever determines

18 that number presumably influences the decay

19 characteristics of the mitochondria. So, if the

20 cell only usually has X number and you put in 10 X,

21 presumably for it to refix itself there has to be

22 loss of some mitochondria.

23 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: Nothing, virtually

24 nothing is known about mitochondrial turnover.

25 DR. SCHON: Maybe the definition of the

230

1 word mitochondria needs to be expanded a little.

2 What we do know is that cells control the mass of

3 mitochondrial DNA. That is what is being

4 regulated, and it is controlled rather well. The

5 number of organelles that enclose those DNAs is

6 what we don\'t know. But since it is a completely

7 dynamic system, at two o\'clock in the afternoon you

8 can have a thousand organelles and at 3:30 you

9 could have two hundred merely because they are

10 fusing and then they are repartitioning. So, it

11 may not be that useful for this discussion to talk

12 about organelles per se, although I agree 100

13 percent, I think selection is at the level of the

14 organelle, not at the level of the DNA.

15 I would like to amplify a little bit about

16 the tissue specificity. Bioenergetics probably

17 play some role in the distribution and the

18 amplification but it can\'t be everything, and I

19 will give you two examples.

20 There is a disease caused by deletions of

21 mitochondrial DNA. Invariably the deletions pile

22 up, among other places besides muscle, in the

23 choroid plexus of the brain and in the dentate

24 nucleus of the cerebellum more than they do in,

25 let\'s say, in the epithelium of the ventricles, and

231

1 we have no idea why that is but there is

2 predilection. There is some signal that is going

3 back and forth that is operating. It is hard to

4 see how it is operating at the level of the genome

5 but it is a genome-specific effect.

6 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: There is one thing to

7 add. Even though it is true in cells in culture

8 that the regulating mitochondrial DNA mass seems to

9 be the signal, but obviously it is not happening in

10 pathology because there is dysregulation in muscle

11 cells. There can be 50 or 100 times more

12 mitochondrial DNAs in a segment of a muscle fiber

13 than normal. So, there is some feedback that is

14 due to the presence of the mutation, presumably,

15 which dysregulates that.

16 DR. MULLIGAN: When the DNA replicates,

17 what is the organelle\'s status?

18 DR. SCHON: I am not understanding the

19 question really.

20 DR. MULLIGAN: Does the DNA replicate

21 within an otherwise intact organelle? Or, is it

22 compromised or changed in shape in some fashion?

23 DR. SCHON: We don\'t know anything about

24 it. It just happens.

25 DR. SALOMON: Remember, what I want to

232

1 focus you guys on is what about all of this relates

2 back to the safety and to the kinds of biological

3 questions that these guys in the IVF field are

4 going to face in developing an IND? I think they

5 will be happy to say that they will screen patient

6 donors for mitochondrial disease, which they have

7 admitted they haven\'t done up until now, but if

8 they do that, then one is assuming we are

9 transferring normal mitochondria and, therefore, if

10 they add that one little piece it seems like they

11 will substantially remove this as a safety issue,

12 and the fact that there is this high threshold

13 anyway would seem to even enhance that.

14 So, that is all good news for them in

15 terms of safety issues. What I want to make sure

16 though is, as we go around here, that there aren\'t

17 other issues that they need to address.

18 DR. VAN BLERKOM: So, maybe the first

19 question is, from what we have heard so far, is

20 there any evidence that mitochondria are rescuing

21 these eggs to begin with?

22 DR. SALOMON: Right. I was listening to

23 you and the one question I wrote down, and I am

24 going to put it to you now\--I wrote down first any

25 specific measure of oocyte mitochondrial function

233

1 that compares good or normal oocytes to those from

2 infertile females. You then launched into an ATP

3 content slide and made one comment, which I thought

4 was at least partially addressing this, and that is

5 that there seems to be some correlation. Now, how

6 much of that was hand waving and how much of that

7 was stuff that would really stand up to statistical

8 analysis?

9 DR. VAN BLERKOM: First of all, that was

10 published stuff and it was actually statistically

11 analyzed so it wasn\'t hand waving. But the point

12 is that at the time it was done there was a

13 relatively limited number of patients. We had 30

14 or 40 in that group. But there was no explanation

15 for why those differences existed because, again,

16 these were analyzed at the same time, from the same

17 patients, so there was no culture artifact or

18 anything of that sort.

19 Now, with the notion that you have

20 differences in mitochondrial DNA copy numbers that

21 can be an order of magnitude, the question then

22 comes are the ones that are the low ATP producers

23 low ATP because they had, for some reason,

24 inherited a low number of mitochondria? What the

25 metabolic experiment showed was that, in fact, to

234

1 make an egg and to make an embryo you don\'t need a

2 lot of mitochondria, functional mitochondria. It

3 may be that at later stages at some point you do,

4 but the number of mitochondria that are being

5 injected is so small, and since they are not

6 replicating, it is hard to imagine that if you are

7 starting out with an egg that is below a certain

8 threshold to get a normal embryo through the first

9 four or five days of development you need 150,000

10 and you put an extra 10,000 in, it is hard to

11 imagine that that is going to make a difference.

12 So, numerically it doesn\'t make sense. I

13 think there are eggs that fall away in terms of

14 natural developmental failure, perhaps their

15 inheritance of mitochondria is very low for

16 whatever reason. But, you see, those are gone

17 anyway. They are not going to be rescued.

18 DR. SALOMON: Can I follow-up on that?

19 Actually, another question I wrote down was just

20 what you said. I am still confused here. So, the

21 question I wrote down is why are there so many

22 mitochondria in an oocyte, 100,000, as compared to

23 a somatic cell\--

24 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Because they are

25 replicating until after implantation.

235

1 DR. SALOMON: So you think they need all

2 these in order to survive?

3 DR. VAN BLERKOM: I mean, that is it. I

4 mean, all mitochondria come from that. All the

5 mitochondria that are present as the cell divides

6 and parceled out come from that initial population.

7 DR. SALOMON: So, you think there has to

8 be this big reservoir of mitochondria and then, as

9 you go to eight and twelve and so many cells, you

10 start distributing around and you get down to what

11 a normal somatic cell has. So, that is a real

12 simple explanation like that. Does anyone know

13 what the function of the 100,000 mitochondria\--it

14 is obviously not 100,000 times the ATP reservoir of

15 a somatic cell. Is that right?

16 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Well, they are involved

17 in APTP product. They seem also to be involved in

18 calcium signaling in the cell. They also seem to

19 be involved in other functions that are not

20 necessarily metabolic. They redistribute

21 themselves, as I showed, in terms of spatial

22 remodeling, presumably for ionic purposes or energy

23 purposes, early in the division. But you are

24 dealing with a very big cell. I mean, this is a

25 100 micron cell. So, I don\'t know why whoever put

236

1 in 100,000 or whatever mitochondria decided that

2 was an important number, but it probably was an

3 important number in terms of the reservoir that

4 exists for later on. It is probably an

5 over-capacity or redundancy in terms of development

6 because you can knock out function for a fairly

7 substantial proportion of those mitochondria and

8 the egg still divides.

9 DR. SCHON: We shouldn\'t have tunnel

10 vision here. The mitochondria is not synonymous

11 for ATP production. There are TCA cycles, steroid

12 oogenesis, beta oxidation, amino acid synthesis,

13 and on and on and on, especially steroids for

14 oocytes. You might need 100,000 just to partition

15 out little molecules that are important for this

16 egg, and that could be the end of it, and the ATP

17 goes to sleep because you don\'t need it until down

18 the road, and that is the simple answer.

19 DR. SALOMON: I guess you guys see where I

20 am going with this. I am asking the question how

21 can you construct a rational series of experiments

22 even to test the hypothesis that injecting the

23 extra mitochondria from the good eggs into the bad

24 eggs, if you will allow me to be that simplistic,

25 is doing anything here? You are injecting 10,000

237

1 to 20,000, but the point is that if you don\'t know

2 what it is about the function of 100,000, what do

3 you measure? So, can we even think of a way to

4 compare these, or is this really possible right

5 now?

6 DR. SCHON: I don\'t think this is the

7 venue for experimental design. Having said that,

8 if you want to test whether ATP production had an

9 impact, there is a line of cells that make no ATP;

10 they are otherwise normal and you can inject those.

11 It is not an easy experiment but it can be done. I

12 am not sure what you would learn from such a thing

13 however, to be honest. It goes back to the issue

14 of what I said before. This is a multi-level

15 interacting system and checking one at a time may

16 or may not give an answer, and I don\'t know how to

17 interpret it.

18 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: There is an experiment

19 you could do but it is an inhibitor experiment, and

20 they are all inherently dirty, but there are some

21 dyes that irreversibly knock out mitochondria, like

22 rhodamine 6G for instance, so you could treat your

23 extract with rhodamine 6G, kill the mito\'s and

24 inject the ooplasm and see if you got the same

25 rescue. So, I mean, it can be approached this way.

238

1 I prefer to do things genetically because I think

2 it is a little tidier, but there are ways to do

3 that genetically\--not ways to do that experiment

4 but I can think of a lot of genetic experiments

5 that would test the notion that you need that many.

6 I personally think, and this may be an

7 extreme view, that you just need them to parcel

8 them out. So, if you look at the mitochondria at

9 the egg level, morphologically the look like

10 mitochondria in the rozero cells that Eric was

11 talking about that have no mitochondrial DNA. They

12 look like inactive or dead mitochondria and I think

13 it is just a mechanism to hand them out to the

14 descendants in a system, for whatever reason, where

15 there is no mitochondrial replication.

16 DR. MOOS: A couple of things, just a

17 quick, offhand comment although we are not going to

18 get into details of experimental design, if we

19 generate some good ideas for experiments that we

20 should all be thinking about, that is a great

21 outcome for this meeting.

22 I too was struck by the ATP slide, not

23 necessarily because it might all by itself be

24 definitive but there is a hint there perhaps of

25 something that we can use. So, I am curious

239

1 whether what was done was simply to measure total

2 ATP content, or whether P31 NMR to look at energy

3 charge, or techniques to look at metabolism either

4 have been or might be considered because the other

5 thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the

6 oocyte is not a bag of stuff that is mixed

7 isotopically and, indeed, there might be extremely

8 rapid turnover of nucleotides tightly localized in

9 particular regions that, you know, some

10 high-powered analytical biochemistry might be used

11 to address. That would then give us the beginnings

12 of something that we can use to look at the process

13 and keep it characterized and controlled.

14 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Can I answer that? That

15 was total ATP measurements, but you are right about

16 micro-compartmentalization of ATP. It turns out to

17 be really important in terms of cell function, and

18 I don\'t know how you would actually study that\--oh,

19 he does; he is smarter!

20 The issue is that you want to keep these

21 things alive and actually do something to them

22 functionally afterwards rather than just looking at

23 them in static.

24 DR. MOOS: Sure. There are two tiers.

25 There is the investigative tier and that is

240

1 separate from a QA sort of tier.

2 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Right.

3 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Casper?

4 DR. CASPER: Coming back to the point of

5 why maybe just injecting 10,000 mitochondria would

6 be helpful, from the clinical point of view, we

7 have been discussing patients who make fragmented

8 embryos and trying to rescue those fragmented

9 embryos, there is some data that embryo

10 fragmentation may be related to apoptosis or

11 programmed cell death sort of issue. We have

12 actually shown that cell death gene transcription

13 does increase with increasing embryo fragmentation.

14 Nobody has mentioned so far that

15 mitochondria actually have Bcl-2 family member

16 proteins associated with them. So, one of the

17 issues may well be that we are injecting enough

18 mitochondria that we are adding some cell death

19 suppressors, enough to sort of inhibit or

20 antagonize cell death genes that could be turned on

21 abnormally in some of these embryos.

22 DR. SALOMON: That is really interesting.

23 The problem with that is that at least our current

24 understanding of this is that these are occurring

25 at the mitochondrial cell surface itself. It would

241

1 be an interesting concept to set up competition

2 with controlling caspase activation at the native

3 mitochondria by injecting new mitochondria because

4 these proteins are not necessarily translocating to

5 new mitochondria in the process.

6 DR. CASPER: No, but they wouldn\'t

7 translocate. You are putting them in right at the

8 time of fertilization, so very early on in the

9 process. It could be controlled by the nucleus of

10 the cell. You may just have to get the embryo past

11 a certain stage so mitochondria can replicate and

12 make more of its own protective proteins.

13 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Naviaux and then Dr.

14 Rao.

15 DR. NAVIAUX: There is a dynamic interplay

16 in bioenergetics. There are two ways that the cell

17 can produce ATP and, because of the interplay where

18 we started to get some understanding of that,

19 actually in the last century when Pasteur, you

20 know, defined the suppression of glycolysis by

21 oxygen and later, around 1927 a biochemist,

22 Crabtree, defined the suppression of oxidase

23 phosphorylation by glucose. Traditionally, when

24 you try to measure the contributions of glycolytic

25 and ox phos pathways to overall ATP synthesis, you

242

1 do it under laboratory conditions of ambient

2 oxygen, let\'s say, at 20 percent. But the female

3 reproductive tract, of course, is one of the most

4 anaerobic environments in the human body and low

5 oxygen tension actually does alter the relative

6 contributions of bioenergetics available to the

7 egg, particularly before implantation and the blood

8 supply is established.

9 There are some early experiments that look

10 at radiolabeled glucose and its oxidation to either

11 lactate of 14-labeled CO2, and in early embryos a

12 very large proportion, exceeding 80 percent of the

13 carbon, can come out as 14C-labeled lactate as

14 opposed to 14C-labeled CO2, emphasizing the

15 importance of glycolysis in bioenergetics of

16 embryos at least at an early stage.

17 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Rao and then Dr. Murray.

18 DR. RAO: I want to try and take off from

19 what you just said about rather than looking at

20 experiments to see what we can take home from here

21 in terms of application, and there are two issues

22 that struck me from the points you made. Does this

23 tell us anything about the reproducibility of

24 taking ooplasm at any site? Should one suggest a

25 particular site, or does it tell you that there is

243

1 going to be so much variability that you have no

2 predictive power at all?

3 The second thing is does this tell you

4 about selection of the donor oocyte or the

5 recipient oocyte in any fashion in terms of doing

6 this?

7 Lastly, if one assumes that mitochondria

8 can play an important role in signaling, then does

9 this tell us that even the small number that you

10 place, because of patterns of signaling which are

11 critical in terms of dynamism in this thing, that

12 small number can be quite critical and, therefore,

13 where you place them might be very important as

14 well? If anybody can comment on the

15 specifications?

16 DR. WILLADSEN: I am Steen Willadsen, from

17 St. Barnabas. First of all, I think I should tell

18 you a little bit about the historical start of

19 this. We weren\'t concerned about mitochondria

20 specifically, and I think that in a way we are now

21 barking up the wrong tree with the wrong dog.

22 Obviously, this committee is concerned

23 because there is DNA being transferred. That was

24 not our primary concern. It would be very easy, I

25 think, to design experiments where no mitochondria

244

1 were transferred. In fact, we don\'t even know that

2 the mitochondria that are in the egg have any

3 particular function at the time. As was pointed

4 out by one of the speakers, they are probably

5 useful for making the egg, which is a very

6 specialized cell. So, I think the real issue with

7 the mitochondria in this context is are they

8 dangerous and how the egg otherwise gets along. I

9 think it is wrong to focus so completely on the

10 mitochondria because they can very easily be

11 brought out of the picture. Then, where would the

12 FDA be?

13 The second thing is that obviously when

14 you look at these risks, and I think I will say at

15 this point if you look at the risks, I can only

16 speak from the basis of the evidence that I have

17 some insight into, the major risk if you enter as a

18 patient into this program is that you could get

19 pregnant. That is the major risk. Whether you

20 would like to say that this because it is a

21 treatment or whether you say it is because of the

22 place, it is a big risk if you go into the program

23 because 40 percent of the patients got pregnant.

24 Thank you.

25 DR. RAO: Can I respond to that?

245

1 DR. SALOMON: Okay, but I think what we

2 have to realize here is that what we are doing

3 right this second is focusing on the mitochondria.

4 It doesn\'t mean that we will end the day focusing

5 on it, it is just that we are following a

6 discussion of two very, you know, high level

7 professors telling us about mitochondria. So, I

8 think it is very appropriate right this minute to

9 be focusing on the mitochondria. But I think that

10 to think of this in context, to be reminded that we

11 have to put it in context is perfectly fair, and I

12 think we will have to come back to it because you

13 articulated some of the issues we are going to have

14 to deal with in about half an hour. But in that

15 context, it is okay. I just don\'t think we have to

16 defend why we are talking about mitochondria right

17 now. I think that is what we are supposed to be

18 doing.

19 DR. SCHON: This is not really in the

20 realm of safety but I would just like to bring it

21 to the floor. The transfer of ooplasm means the

22 transfer of mitochondria right now, unless the

23 protocol is changed. So, I would like to spend

24 just a couple of minutes talking about the

25 evolutionary implications of this, not safety, not

246

1 viability.

2 It comes to the heart of why nature

3 invented maternal inheritance in the first place.

4 So, why is that? In fact, nobody really knows but

5 the most reasonable answer is the same reason why

6 nature invented sex, and it comes down to something

7 Muller\'s ratchet which in economics would be called

8 Gresham\'s law\--all things being equal, things go

9 from bad to worse. I think that would be the best

10 way to describe Muller\'s ratchet.

11 So, if you had clonal expansions of DNAs

12 that were going to their progeny, eventually they

13 would call up mutations and wipe out that organism

14 in evolutionary time. So, sex was invented to

15 erase that\--well, that is a little bald statement

16 there. That is part of the reason I think sex was

17 invented, to help accommodate, to deal with those

18 kinds of mutations.

19 Now, when you have an organelle that is

20 present not at one or two copies per cell but at

21 thousands, it is very difficult to deal with that

22 kind of a problem of Muller\'s ratchet where, if a

23 mutation arises, it just naturally will spread

24 through the population, as you saw so dramatically.

25 So, what appears to have happened is that maternal

247

1 inheritance came around so that when mutations

2 arose you shut them down. In fact, when we look at

3 pedigrees with real diseases, first of all, the

4 pedigrees are short, meaning they go from

5 great-grandmother to proband and might go one more

6 generation and then, like a light going out, that

7 pedigree is extinguished carrying that mutation.

8 That is what is really going on.

9 That mutation only passes through the

10 maternal line and goes nowhere else. So, all

11 mitochondrial mutations that we study are really

12 only a few hundred years old, if you will, or less

13 in time. They come on and they go out.

14 So, what does this have to do with

15 ooplasmic transfer? So, now we are taking oocytes,

16 ooplasm containing mitochondrial haplotype A and

17 sticking it into a recipient cell with

18 mitochondrial haplotype B. This is lateral genetic

19 transfer. All right? We haven\'t eliminated

20 Muller\'s ratchet but we haven\'t made things that

21 much better either because now you are putting in a

22 new genotype from this pedigree into a new

23 pedigree. If you do this with one person, two

24 people, ten people, a hundred people it is probably

25 irrelevant. But if you start doing this with tens

248

1 of thousands of people\--I don\'t expect this ever to

2 happen at that scale but it is something just to

3 think about\--y are now transferring mitochondrial

4 genotypes horizontally through the population that

5 otherwise would never have been transferred because

6 they all pass vertically. That is the only point I

7 am trying to make. I can\'t quantitate the impact

8 of this, it is just a fact.

9 DR. MURRAY: This will be a question for

10 Dr. Van Blerkom. Thanks to both speakers.

11 Fascinating, I have learned a lot from both

12 presentations. I am going to focus on one thing

13 which we may actually be able to put aside, but one

14 of the striking things in your presentation was the

15 information about the dynamic patterning and

16 remodeling of the location of mitochondria in the

17 egg. You showed us some slides of how that might

18 affect calcium ion transport, and the like. Is

19 there any reason to think that the injection of

20 another 10,000, a bolus of cytoplasm with 10,000

21 mitochondria in some particular site in the egg

22 would be either readily integrated and made to

23 dance the same way as the native ones, or might

24 there be some disruption of, say, fine structure of

25 transport structures, the architecture within the

249

1 cell that might make it more difficult? One, is

2 this important enough to worry about? Two, are

3 there ways to sort of answer that question?

4 DR. VAN BLERKOM: I don\'t think I have an

5 answer for that, except to say that the work we

6 have done with regard to mitochondrial transfer

7 indicates that you can\'t predict how they we dance.

8 In some eggs they will remain where you place them

9 as the cells divide; in others there is a more

10 pronounced distribution. So, that is the level of

11 predictability, which is a problem.

12 As far as interrupting, I don\'t get the

13 sense that the amount of cytoplasm that is put in

14 and the number of mitochondria that are transferred

15 is actually significant in terms of disrupting any

16 of the normal cell functions or even contributing

17 to them, for that matter.

18 DR. MURRAY: You don\'t think it makes a

19 difference?

20 DR. VAN BLERKOM: I don\'t think it makes a

21 difference.

22 DR. MULLIGAN: Is there anything that

23 aggregates the mitochondria or keeps them in any

24 constrained fashion that, upon transfer\--this is

25 kind of a similar question to what Tom was asking,

250

1 that is, some cytoskeletal structure that you

2 transfer like a precipitative mitochondria?

3 DR. VAN BLERKOM: I think Jacques actually

4 alluded to this when he spoke about differences in

5 the cytoplasmic texture, and we have to think in

6 terms of the human and our experience, those of us

7 who have experience in working with human eggs, is

8 that even with the standard ICSI procedure eggs

9 differ substantially in how they receive sperm, how

10 the cytoplasm is withdrawn, the viscosity of the

11 cytoplasm, and you can actually see this as you do

12 it. I have seen this many times. I think the

13 situation that Jacques has described, where you

14 have different cytoplasmic textures and you can

15 actually see in his cytoplasmic transfer studies

16 the cytoplasm that is injected in some eggs but not

17 in others, I think indicates why in some cases when

18 you put in a bolus of mitochondria or a bolus or

19 cytoplasm they remain fixed in position and in

20 other cases they are more diffuse. I think you

21 cannot predict that. I don\'t think you want to

22 relax the cytoplasm by treating it with drugs so

23 that you have some sort of uniform distribution or

24 some controllable distribution.

25 DR. MULLIGAN: Can you alter the viscosity

251

1 or whatever you want to call it\--

2 DR. VAN BLERKOM: In a sense you can relax

3 the cytoplasm. It usually requires treatment with

4 some relaxant drugs that will relax

5 cytoarchitectural components. I don\'t think you

6 want to do that in clinical IVF. The problem in

7 the cytoplasm injection is that you have already

8 injected the cytoplasm and now you discover that,

9 in fact, the recipient egg has, let\'s say, a

10 particular viscosity where the cytoplasm remains

11 intact in one position. Maybe those type of

12 studies will be useful to determine whether or not

13 the mitochondria remain fixed or not as a prelude

14 to a clinical trial. But they are differences that

15 are egg specific. They are hard to predict and

16 what I tried to emphasize is that just by looking

17 at an egg you really can\'t tell.

18 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Hursh and then Dr.

19 Sausville. Then what I would like to do is move on

20 to Dr. Knowles, only because I am just trying to

21 have some time at the end.

22 DR. MALTER: Very brief?

23 DR. SALOMON: Yes, sure.

24 DR. MALTER: I am Henry Malter, from St.

25 Barnabas. Jonathan, the experience you showed,

252

1 what exactly did you do? Was that where you were

2 isolating essentially mitochondria in part of the

3 cytoplasm and taking it from there?

4 DR. VAN BLERKOM: The experiments I showed

5 were not cytoplasmic injections. These were

6 procedure where we have actually compartmentalized

7 the mitochondria and then took mitochondria in

8 relatively small drops, smaller than you would

9 actually use in a cytoplasmic transfer, and

10 actually deposited it into the egg. So, those were

11 enriched mitochondrial fractions.

12 DR. MALTER: I just wanted to remind of

13 some images that actually Jacques showed because we

14 have done this as well. In fact, we have done it

15 with spare human material and it is essentially

16 duplicating exactly what is done during the

17 clinical cytoplasmic transfer material, loading an

18 egg with labeled mitochondria and injecting them.

19 Those were not extensive experiments but we never

20 saw that just sitting in one place. Basically, you

21 showed right after injection you can see this

22 bolus, this red image in part of the cytoplasm and

23 then, as development proceeded, they just

24 essentially seemed to disperse and it was just

25 variable. You would see it in some blastomeres.

253

1 DR. VAN BLERKOM: So, these were

2 fertilized eggs after injection?

3 DR. MALTER: Yes.

4 DR. HURSH: This question is for Dr.

5 Shoubridge. You don\'t feel that heteroplasmy

6 itself is a problem, but if there was a situation

7 where the mitochondria became asymmetrically

8 distributed so you had one, say, organ that was

9 primarily donor mitochondria could you foresee any

10 problems with that mitochondria with a disconnect

11 with the nucleus in any way? Would that be a

12 safety consideration that we need to be

13 considering?

14 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: Our data would suggest

15 that it is not a big problem, but I don\'t think you

16 can rule it out because, I mean, what happens

17 biologically is that every time you have a child,

18 of course, the father\'s nuclear DNA is introduced.

19 So, now that nuclear DNA is introduced to

20 mitochondrial DNA that it has never seen and the

21 mother\'s genome has seen that mitochondrial DNA.

22 So, it is a natural process for new nuclear genes

23 to be introduced into mitochondrial DNA genes to

24 dance with them and they have never danced with

25 them before, to follow the dancing analogy. But in

254

1 the case of our mice, of course, that is exactly

2 what we have, we have complete fixation of a donor

3 genotype in the liver. In that case it doesn\'t

4 seem to produce any particular phenotype that we

5 can recognize but we haven\'t done any liver

6 function tests. The mice seem to be pretty normal,

7 but I don\'t think you can rule it out.

8 DR. SAUSVILLE: So, this question\'s last

9 comment sort of follows along on that. First of

10 all, I want to thank both of the speakers this

11 afternoon because I think they have put, at least

12 for me, a lot of the biological issues somewhat in

13 greater perspective.

14 But, I guess, addressing one of the other

15 major concerns that goes into the IND and, again,

16 this is somewhat to what Dr. Hursh\'s question

17 alludes to, is the issue of safety. I seem to be

18 hearing that if one looks to safety either from the

19 implications for the recipient, the organism who

20 receives it, the mouse experiments don\'t suggest

21 that there is a tremendously great effect for

22 having radically different mitochondrial genomes

23 and, moreover, do suggest that if there were to be

24 a bad different you would have to have an enormous

25 amount of penetration in one participant organ.

255

1 Then, the comment that you made

2 subsequently is that if one looks at safety from

3 the standpoint of evolutionary safety, at one level

4 you could construe that as an argument that the

5 mechanism is designed to keep itself safe because

6 it is going to extinguish itself within a very few

7 generations and you would have to posit that if

8 this were a threat to our collective genomes you

9 would have to have a succession of almost continued

10 maintenance through some sort of artificial system.

11 So, I guess quite apart from the issue of

12 whether mitochondria really do anything for you or

13 whether, indeed, the cytoplasm does anything for

14 you, my initial reaction to this is that it is hard

15 to make the case that the procedure appears unsafe,

16 at least from the standpoint of mitochondrial

17 related matters.

18 DR. SALOMON: Yes, I think I was earlier

19 saying the same thing in another way, that it seems

20 like with the threshold issue there is a lot of

21 safety.

22 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I guess the only thing I

23 would add there is that the slight caution is that

24 because we know there are mechanisms that increase

25 the proportion of bad guys in cells from patients

256

1 who have disease, if you unwittingly put in

2 something from an individual that is below the

3 threshold you could select for it in a

4 tissue-specific way. I think that may be a very

5 small risk but I don\'t think it is zero.

6 DR. MULLIGAN: I think that one issue

7 about mechanism that is important is that if you

8 really did think that mitochondria weren\'t

9 important, by not having mitochondria in your

10 ooplasm you could, obviously, reduce whatever risk

11 you otherwise would be concerned about. So, it is

12 a relevant issue just because you have wiped out

13 that risk completely if you didn\'t have any.

14 DR. SAUSVILLE: But then that becomes

15 impossible to investigate in the conventionally

16 clinically oriented situation since what we have

17 heard is that while, in an ideal sense, you would

18 parse out precisely which part of this works, I

19 inferred from the discussion earlier that that is

20 going to be very difficult from a practical point

21 of view to ever do in a meaningful sense

22 clinically.

23 DR. MULLIGAN: There might be people who

24 don\'t feel that that is an important part of the

25 method and would choose to go down the regulatory

257

1 pathway that wouldn\'t make use of mitochondria.

2 DR. SAUSVILLE: I don\'t think there is

3 anything that would prevent that from a regulatory

4 standpoint, but the issue is whether or not the

5 user community would actually go down that path. I

6 think that is uncertain to me from what I have

7 heard.

8 DR. SALOMON: We certainly haven\'t gotten

9 to where we need to be by the end of the day, but I

10 think we have made some progress along that line.

11 Ms. Knowles is going to talk to us about ethical

12 issues and then, just to give you the lay of the

13 land, we are going to do the public comment

14 section, take a break and come back and really get

15 into the key questions, and that is when we will

16 have to have it all in perspective, mitochondrial

17 safety, ooplasm, other components of the ooplasm

18 and its impact on this group of scientists and

19 physicians.

20 Ethical Issues in Human Ooplasm

21 Transfer Experimentation

22 MS. KNOWLES: Thank you for inviting me to

23 be a part of this. I have been charged with

24 elucidating the ethical issues in human ooplasm

25 transfer experimentation. So, we are going to step

258

1 back a little bit from all the mitochondrial data

2 we have been talking about, and stepping back from

3 the animal models, and we are looking now at the

4 issue that we started with today, looking at the

5 experimentation of ooplasm transfer, that I am

6 going to call OT just for shorthand, in humans, and

7 looking at some of the ethical issues.

8 In terms of context, I just want to

9 highlight that all medical experimentation takes

10 place in the context of some risk and some

11 uncertainty. The question, therefore, is what is

12 the threshold of risk and uncertainty that is

13 acceptable? One way that we can better understand

14 the risk and uncertainty of OT experimentation is

15 by looking at what I am calling the knowns and

16 unknowns.

17 So, in terms of elucidating safety and

18 efficacy concerns, we are going to say to ourselves

19 what threshold of risk and uncertainty exists in

20 this context and so what are the knowns and

21 unknowns. I am going to look at the implications

22 this has not only for whether it is ethical to

23 proceed with this technique in women and to create

24 children, but also the implications for informed

25 consent.

259

1 Considerable amount of thought, discussion

2 and work has been devoted to the question of the

3 ethics and science of both therapies and

4 experiments that result in inheritable genetic

5 modifications, and I adopt that term from the AAAS

6 report of 2000. In the time that is allotted to

7 me, I can\'t do justice to that work but what I can

8 do is nod to some of the work and some of the

9 issues that are on the table when we are talking

10 about inheritable genetic modifications.

11 Similarly, I don\'t actually have time to address

12 the depth of the issue of what I call the invisible

13 woman, the other woman who is involved in all of

14 these procedures, the egg provider.

15 So, it is extremely important to realize

16 that the implications of proceeding with OT both in

17 experiments and as a clinical technique have larger

18 ripple effects which implicate the safety of the

19 women who undergo the egg provision, the egg

20 donation as it is called, to enable this technique

21 to go forward. So, whereas ooplasm transfer is

22 primarily concerned with transplanting genetic

23 material that is believed, although we don\'t know

24 certainly at all, to not have an impact on

25 phenotypic development of the embryo, there is a

260

1 likelihood then that the market for oocytes will be

2 increased and will pull on women who have not

3 typically been pulled on for provision of eggs

4 based on their phenotypic characteristics which

5 aren\'t going to be, we assume, as important in this

6 market. So, that has some larger social ripples

7 and ramifications that we should be thinking about

8 as well.

9 That leads me to my last area of concern

10 that I am actually not going to touch on. Given

11 FDA\'s mandate, I am not going to address the social

12 and legal ramifications of this technique but I

13 think it is necessary to underline the importance

14 these issues have, the uncertainty that exists

15 where genetic parenthood is tripartite and the

16 ethical imperative now to have a broad and

17 multidisciplinary review of the ethical and

18 scientific issues. So, somebody needs to be free

19 to deliberate about these larger ethical issues as

20 well, and I think it is my responsibility to just

21 outline that.

22 Turning then to safety and efficacy, we

23 are asking ourselves what are the unknowns. There

24 are clearly more unknowns than I have on this list

25 so I am just going to highlight what I think some

261

1 of the most important unknowns are. The first is

2 it is not known, and we have heard this many times

3 so a lot of what I am going to say is going to be

4 sort of summarizing\--what is not known are the

5 defects that ooplasm transfer is trying to correct.

6 It is not known what is doing the work in

7 OT. Although we have concentrated on mitochondria

8 recently, we have to remember that we don\'t

9 actually know what is doing the work. We don\'t

10 know whether OT techniques have an adverse effect

11 on transferred material. We don\'t know that. We

12 don\'t know whether OT helps actualize abnormal

13 embryos that would not otherwise be actualized.

14 And, we don\'t know the effects on embryos, infants

15 and toddlers\--humans\--with heteroplasmy. Would

16 don\'t know what its effects are.

17 So, let\'s delve a little bit into that.

18 Our scientific understanding of why an embryo does

19 not develop is still incomplete. We heard that a

20 number of different ways today. We know there are

21 a number of different factors that may be

22 implicated including maternal age and including ATP

23 deficiencies. So, let\'s look at what some of the

24 other factors may be.

25 This is a partial quotation from The New

262

1 England Journal of Medicine, March 7, 2002, many

2 factors can lead to poor embryonic development,

3 including chromosomal abnormalities, genetic

4 defects, and cellular abnormalities. Impaired

5 embryonic development may also be consequence of

6 other problems within the embryo or in its

7 immediate environment.

8 In the Huang experiment, in fertility and

9 sterility, October, 1999 it was stated, the reasons

10 for previous implantation, and this is in

11 describing the failure of the nine patients in that

12 study, the reasons for previous implantation

13 failure in these nine patients are not clear

14 because their oocytes appeared morphologically

15 normal and the embryo transferred were of fair

16 quality.

17 This is complicated by a great variation

18 in the women in each of the studies, incomplete

19 histories of the techniques each woman underwent

20 prior to OT, the number of attempts, the techniques

21 tried after OT and inclusion and exclusion criteria

22 for the women in each group. This is complicated

23 by what Dr. Lanzendorf and her colleagues refer to

24 as the subjective grading of embryos in vitro

25 performed by various embryologists, which renders a

263

1 comparison between patients\' previous IVF cycles

2 and treatment cycles unavailable. So, we know that

3 that information in terms of comparison is not

4 available to us in many circumstances.

5 Continuing with the unknowns, what is

6 doing the work? We don\'t know this. Since we

7 don\'t know what is doing the work and whether in

8 all cases it is the same beneficial factor, which

9 we can\'t assume it necessarily is and we don\'t even

10 know if the same beneficial factors are

11 transferred, it is not actually possible to know

12 whether OT is clinically indicated in a particular

13 case.

14 I have shorthanded the citations because I

15 have so many words on these slides, but I have the

16 citations if you would like them. The mechanisms

17 involved are still enigmatic. It remains unclear

18 as to which cellular components are transferred in

19 the donor ooplasm. Exact mechanisms and factors

20 that help to rescue the function of the defective

21 oocytes remain unknown. It is not yet clear how

22 ooplasm transfer works. Specialized proteins or

23 messenger RNAs may direct subsequent cell cycle

24 events. it is also possible that donor

25 mitochondria is providing the benefit.

264

1 So, can transfer techniques have an

2 adverse effect on material that is transferred,

3 transferred material? Here, of course, we are

4 concerned with the risks that are implicit in this

5 technique. Interestingly, it seems that all the

6 research of the clinicians in the protocols that we

7 were provided express some concern with the source

8 of ooplasm or cytoplasm used either in their own

9 experiment outcome used by other in the other

10 experiments. These concerns include the effects of

11 cryopreservation of the material transferred since

12 that has been studied and shows that

13 cryopreservation can have negative impact on

14 oocytes and embryos. That, obviously, has to be

15 considered.

16 So, let\'s look at what they said, because

17 it is still not known what is being transferred to

18 recipient oocytes, it cannot be determined if

19 cryopreservation may have an averse effect on these

20 factors.

21 This is the 3PN protocol and they are

22 commenting on the use of metaphase II oocytes, one

23 concern we have is the risk of transferring donor

24 chromosomes, and we heard about this earlier, from

25 metaphase II oocytes of donors into the recipient\'s

265

1 oocytes.

2 We feel validation is still required to

3 provide absolute proof that donor nuclear DNA has

4 not been accidentally transferred. That is

5 referring to the 3PN protocol.

6 What are the effects on embryos? Well,

7 the bottom line is we don\'t actually know. Let\'s

8 take a look at what they said. Even though the use

9 of cytoplasmic transfer has been employed in

10 several IVF clinics\--this is from the abstract, by

11 the way, of this report\--and pregnancies have

12 resulted, it is not known definitively whether the

13 physiology of the early embryo is affected.

14 There may be an improved developmental

15 potential of hybrid cytoplasm in chromosomally

16 normals as well as abnormal embryos. So, here we

17 know the following risk exists with respect to the

18 effect that OT may have on embryos and that

19 abnormal embryos may be actualized as well as

20 normal embryos getting the boost that we talked

21 about.

22 We do know at this point that ooplasmic

23 transfer can alter the normal inheritance of

24 mitochondrial DNA resulting in sustained

25 heteroplasmy representing both donor and recipient

266

1 mitochondrial DNA. That is also a quotation.

2 What are the effects on the embryos,

3 infants and toddlers with heteroplasmy? And, we

4 are talking about humans. Well, because little is

5 understood about the maintenance of mitochondrial

6 heteroplasmy and its nuclear regulation during

7 human development, the effects of potentially

8 mixing of two mitochondrial populations are still

9 being debated. In other words, we don\'t know.

10 We do know that mitochondrial heteroplasmy

11 may result in embryos, approximately 50 percent

12 from my reading that particular study, of

13 non-viable embryos used in Barritt\'s study

14 exhibited this trait. We also know that two

15 children now exhibit mitochondrial heteroplasmy,

16 but we don\'t know what this means and it is unclear

17 whether all the children created from ooplasm

18 transfer have been tested for mitochondrial

19 heteroplasmy. It sounds like, from the first

20 speaker\'s presentation, that we know that, in fact,

21 not all the children that have been created this

22 way have been tested.

23 So, let\'s look at what we do know. Well,

24 we know that the incidence of chromosomal anomalies

25 is higher in this population than the rate of major

267

1 congenital abnormalities observed in the natural

2 population. This is a quotation from page 430 of

3 Barritt et al. in the European Society of Human

4 Reproduction and Embryology journal.

5 We know that one 18-month old boy, as Dr.

6 Cohen was mentioning this morning, has been

7 diagnosed with PDD. And, we know that the

8 mitochondrial DNA inheritance is changed in some

9 children resulting in an inheritable genetic

10 modification.

11 Let\'s talk about inheritable genetic

12 modification. I want to say first of all that

13 there has been kind of an interesting discussion

14 going on in the literature about whether this is,

15 in fact, a case of germline genetic modification.

16 I think that is, in fact, interesting in and of

17 itself, the fact that there is a lot of energy

18 being spent to make sure that we are not labeling

19 this a germline genetic modification. That should

20 be telling us something. I have seen some very

21 interesting arguments about why it is not a case of

22 germline genetic modification, including one that I

23 have mentioned to several people before, that it

24 can\'t be considered a germline genetic modification

25 because is doesn\'t pass through males. Well, I am

268

1 not actually going to discuss that particular

2 argument but the energy that is being expended

3 should be telling us something about whether, in

4 fact, it is an inheritable genetic modification.

5 Well, why are we concerned about IGMs?

6 Here I have to be really very concise. This term

7 IGM, inheritable genetic modification, as I

8 mentioned, I am taking from the AAAS, the American

9 Association for the Advancement of Science, their

10 2000 report which brought together a group of

11 eminent scientists including gene therapists,

12 ethicists and policy analysts, and they say the

13 following, they say essentially due to the

14 transmission of inheritable genetic modifications,

15 there would need to be compelling scientific

16 evidence that these procedures are safe and

17 effective, compelling scientific evidence. For

18 those techniques that have foreign material, their

19 stability across generations would need to be

20 determined based initially on molecular and animal

21 studies before proceeding with germline

22 interventions in humans. It is not yet possible to

23 meet these standards, nor is it possible to predict

24 when we will be able to do so. One footnote I

25 should add that was correctly mentioned earlier, we

269

1 don\'t know whether, because the blood only of these

2 children has been tested, the germ cells have also

3 inherited this mitochondrial heteroplasmy. But we

4 haven\'t tested for that yet because we can\'t at

5 this point. So, it is important to recognize that

6 that, in fact, is true but it doesn\'t mean that

7 this is not inheritable genetic modification. That

8 is important.

9 They also go on and say the possibility of

10 genetic problems occurring as a result of the

11 unintended germline side effects seems at least as

12 great or greater than those that might arise from

13 intentional inheritable genetic modifications which

14 at this time we don\'t permit in many, many

15 countries. Why? Because knowing you were creating

16 an IGM assumes that you would have safeguards and

17 rigorous monitoring in place and we know that in

18 this case that is actually not true because they

19 allegedly didn\'t think that they were going to be

20 transmitting genetic modification.

21 So, those are the AAAS conclusions.

22 Clearly, we have a duty to future

23 generations\--there is a lot of theoretical work on

24 this, but we can intuit that we do have a duty to

25 future generations to be thinking about what we

270

1 are, in fact, passing on to them, to be doing it

2 carefully if we are going to do it.

3 I would note that there is almost never

4 consensus in the international community, but there

5 is pretty close to a consensus in the international

6 community that we should not be doing research that

7 results in inheritable genetic modifications. I

8 just want to highlight, in terms of the

9 international work, that this would not be

10 permitted in most countries, this kind of protocol,

11 and in the U.K., which is arguably the most liberal

12 with respect to embryo research, they are going to

13 allow some stem cell protocols that we are not in

14 this country, they prohibit germline modification,

15 and the House of Lords stem cell report noted

16 that\--they didn\'t discuss OT in the context of

17 fertility treatments at all, but discussed what we

18 were discussing, the use of a similar procedure

19 with respect to screening out mitochondrial disease

20 and they said that very little research has been

21 carried out on this procedure and it would need

22 extensive testing in animal models and in human

23 eggs before it could be used therapeutically in

24 humans. Remember that they are talking about a

25 therapy in a disease, not fertility, in that

271

1 context.

2 What does heteroplasmy of this type, the

3 type that we have been discussing in humans in the

4 two children that we have been talking about, what

5 does it mean? Well, the bottom line is we don\'t

6 know. We do know that there are diseases

7 associated with mitochondrial heteroplasmy. We

8 know that. Yet, there is no reason to consider

9 this mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy from this OT

10 protocol as harmful because it is known to occur

11 naturally in normal individuals.

12 Well, to be fair, we don\'t know if this

13 type of heteroplasmy resulting from these

14 experiments results in mitochondrial disease

15 because it doesn\'t occur naturally. So, we haven\'t

16 been able yet to determine that it is benign. We

17 simply know that this other type of heteroplasmy

18 can occur in normal individuals and it can occur

19 and be associated with disease states as well. So,

20 we cannot say that it is benign because we don\'t

21 know. We don\'t have the information at hand to

22 know. We haven\'t done the experiments yet to know

23 or the follow-up to know.

24 We do know that one child has PDD but we

25 don\'t know whether that child actually is

272

1 heteroplasmic or not. I would like to know that if

2 we have that information available. I don\'t think

3 we know that.

4 What else? Well, since mitochondrial

5 diseases are associated with heteroplasmy that can

6 be early or late onset, we cannot know whether this

7 heteroplasmy is benign until these children grow

8 up. That is a basic conclusion from logic.

9 Limitations of clinical data, well we

10 heard very candidly from our speakers, and it is

11 much appreciated, some limitations of the clinical

12 data. It is very helpful. Small sample sizes;

13 incomplete information on the women in the

14 experiment for a number of very legitimate reasons.

15 We don\'t know necessarily whether previous

16 procedures are the reasons for their failure.

17 Incomplete testing of the children who have been

18 born; and the lack of long-term follow-up.

19 This is particularly troubling. There is

20 clearly a need for long-term monitoring of the

21 children that are born with a heteroplasmic

22 condition and those that aren\'t born with a

23 heteroplasmic condition. In addition, there is

24 likely going to need to be extensive follow-up of

25 these children until they have children to

273

1 determine whether, in fact, we have an inheritable

2 genetic modification and what happens to it through

3 the generations.

4 This follow-up can, and will likely be

5 very intrusive because, as we were hearing on the

6 mouse models, the mitochondrial segregation is

7 tissue specific and differs. So, if you are going

8 to do proper follow-up you would need to take

9 tissue biopsies from different tissues to

10 understand how the mitochondria has been

11 differentially segregated. This, of course, could

12 be extremely intrusive. Whether one could

13 ethically consent to this kind of long-term

14 monitoring and invasive follow-up for a child that

15 is not yet conceived has to be added to the ethical

16 picture when we are looking at this.

17 So, what do the knowns and unknowns tell

18 us? Well, this has pretty profound implications

19 for informed consent. How you get meaningful

20 informed consent in this environment is a real

21 question and a real challenge, not only because of

22 all the information that we don\'t know but also

23 because of the specific environment which we are

24 dealing with. We are dealing with the environment

25 of reproductive medicine which has a reputation for

274

1 having a tremendous overlap between clinical

2 innovation and human experimentation. This

3 environment has to be factored into the whole

4 question of the meaningfulness of informed consent.

5 Added on to that is the fact that patients

6 that come into fertility clinics are desperate,

7 truly desperate for real reasons to get pregnant.

8 We heard very candidly that they will pressure

9 concentrations, researchers, to provide techniques

10 for them even when they are not necessarily

11 indicated. We have clinicians who are very

12 thoughtful people but who have developed their

13 practice as clinician researchers where much of

14 their practice is the practice of experimentation

15 because they can. This is an interesting area

16 where they can actually do a lot of clinical

17 innovation and human experimentation.

18 So, what does that mean? It means that

19 perhaps this is not the best environment for basic

20 research to be conducted when down the road the

21 risks could be much more than society or even the

22 individuals are actually willing to bear despite

23 what they say in this context. There is near

24 consensus in the literature, in the briefing

25 package, the protocols that we have been

275

1 discussing, that this is not ready for widespread

2 clinical applications. Pretty much all the

3 protocols we read or people who have spoken to us

4 earlier today indicate in their work that they do

5 not believe it is appropriate to conduct this

6 experiment in a widespread fashion in fertility

7 clinics in this country. They are very candid

8 about that.

9 So, should there be more animal testing?

10 Yes. At the very least, one of the things I was

11 struck by was when Dr. Shoubridge was talking is

12 that at the very least we could be doing the tests

13 on his animals, tissue-specific tests to find out

14 whether they are, in fact, normal. He says they

15 appear normal, very candidly, but he doesn\'t know.

16 They haven\'t tested for that. So, we could be

17 doing that work.

18 Given the level of uncertainty of the

19 risk, I think the answer is quite clearly yes. All

20 the studies that we look at rely on animal studies.

21 So little is known about the function of

22 mitochondria, about heteroplasmy, about the

23 bottleneck, about mitochondrial diseases that

24 animal experimentation of various kinds, mice,

25 primates, can surely help elucidate these

276

1 underlying uncertainties.

2 Finally, must there be further human

3 embryo experimentation before embryos are implanted

4 and children are born? Yes. There must be more

5 human embryo experimentation before implantation.

6 This is a lovely quote from The New England Journal

7 of Medicine, the use of novel reproductive

8 techniques must be based on more than their mere

9 availability. There has to be clear clinical

10 indication for using such techniques, evidence of

11 their efficacy and consideration of the risks to

12 the mother and society.

13 This is difficult. We make decisions

14 about bringing techniques to human trials by

15 looking at the risks and uncertainties, the

16 potential harm to the patients, offspring and other

17 individuals involved. But we have to also factor

18 in the nature of the condition that is the focus of

19 these experiments in examining the risk to the

20 patients. Here we are talking about how quickly we

21 move forward. How imperative is it that this

22 results in human experimentation in the clinics

23 tomorrow? So, this is a factor in our

24 deliberations.

25 In this case, although infertility can be

277

1 a very serious condition with serious and real

2 emotional impacts and personal side effects, this

3 is not always the case with infertility. More

4 importantly, we are talking about the ability to

5 have a genetically related child. Let\'s make it

6 even more of a finer point here. The inability to

7 have a genetically related child is not a

8 life-threatening or fatal condition.

9 So, my point is simply that when we

10 discuss how quickly we move forward, the necessity

11 of making this happen quickly in fertility clinics,

12 we have to keep this in mind as well. Finally and

13 very importantly, we have a duty to the children

14 that we help to be born to do our utmost to see

15 that they are born free from disease or impairment,

16 and we are not there yet.

17 The combination of these factors quite

18 clearly, in my mind, mandates that further trials

19 not be conducted on human embryos that will be

20 implanted in women with the hope of creating more

21 children at this time. If the FDA decides

22 otherwise, there are, in fact, all kinds of factors

23 that should be introduced, that I don\'t have time

24 to go through\--informed consent procedures,

25 rigorous screening, etc. that we can discuss at

278

1 another time. That is the end of my remarks.

2 DR. SALOMON: Thank you for a really

3 superb presentation and actually an excellent

4 transition. What I would like to do now, before

5 the break, is to invite three people who are on the

6 official docket for public comment. We have

7 allotted seven minutes each for these people. Then

8 we will take a break and then come back and face

9 the set of questions, many of which we have set

10 groundwork for and some of which we will have to

11 try and put in a proper context.

12 The first person I would call for the

13 public hearing is Dr. Jamie Grifo, representing the

14 American Society for Reproductive Technology.

15 Welcome, Dr. Grifo.

16 Open Public Hearing

17 DR. GRIFO: Thank you. I appreciate the

18 opportunity to speak. My name is Jamie Grifo. I

19 am a clinician researcher. I am a reproductive

20 endocrinologist. I am the division director at

21 MIU, University School of Medicine for Reproductive

22 Endocrinology. I oversee our laboratory; I oversee

23 our research. I run the fellowship and I am a

24 practicing clinician.

25 In my spare time I am the president of

279

1 SARD. SARD is an organization of the American

2 Society of Reproductive Medicine. It has been in

3 existence since 1988. We are composed of

4 physicians, scientists, researchers, embryologists,

5 nurses, mental health providers and patient

6 advocates. We set the standard for the practice of

7 our medicine.

8 You have never heard a story about this

9 organization because we are not sensational and

10 there is no journalist that will tell our story.

11 We have effectively set the standard for our field;

12 we have self-regulated and no one knows this story.

13 We are the only group of physicians in the world

14 who collect data, validate data, publish data in

15 collaboration with the CDC about clinic specific

16 and national birth rates. We have strict

17 membership guidelines. We have strict criteria for

18 lab and medical directors of programs. We validate

19 data by random site visits. We have ethical

20 guidelines and practice guidelines that are

21 required to be followed in order to maintain

22 membership. We have teeth. We have eliminated 30

23 people from our membership for failure to adhere to

24 our guidelines.

25 More recently, we now require performance

280

1 standards and if they are not met we offer remedial

2 services to these clinics to assure quality of

3 care. We have also issued a statement saying that

4 we do not think reproductive cloning should be done

5 at the current time until it is proven to be safe

6 and effective.

7 So, we have set the standard for our

8 field. We do regulate our field, and we have done

9 a very good job. Unfortunately, the media prefers

10 to talk about people who are not our members and

11 who are not doing things that people say they are

12 doing.

13 We are very pleased that the FDA has taken

14 an active role in regulating the medicines and the

15 devices that we use to assure safety for our

16 patients. Our goal is that our patients have

17 healthy outcomes.

18 I do not believe, and we do not believe

19 that ooplasmic transfer is a food or a drug. It is

20 a research protocol. Research protocols

21 traditionally have been regulated by a very fine

22 situation that has withstood the test of time. It

23 is called informed consent and institutional review

24 board. That method has worked. Human research has

25 been done ethically. Results have been good.

281

1 Safety has been assured.

2 One must realize that you can never assure

3 safety in any new technique. The safest thing that

4 we can do is stop all research in our field.

5 Unfortunately, the series of letters sent out from

6 FDA has just done that in our field. That has

7 assured that our work will be done in other

8 countries by people who perhaps do not have the

9 skills or the support to do what we, Americans, can

10 do. We have been the best in our field.

11 Unfortunately, we have had that privilege taken

12 away from us.

13 Through informed consent and IRB we have

14 introduced in our specialty, in very rapid

15 sequence, techniques that did not exist. We have

16 made the practice of IVF better. We have helped

17 more patients. Techniques such as ICSI, assisted

18 hatching, embryo biopsy in co-culture have been in

19 existence and have helped many patients. Embryo

20 biopsy was done initially in England. It took me

21 four years to get institutional review board

22 approval to do embryo biopsy. In collaboration

23 with Jacques, we had the first baby in the United

24 States. We were the second group in the world.

25 There have been hundreds of thousands of babies

282

1 born free of genetic disease by this technique. If

2 we attempted to institute this practice into our

3 field today in this environment, we would not be

4 able to do that.

5 I applaud the FDA in wanting to assure

6 safety, but human research will always have

7 inherent risks. You cannot get rid of risk. With

8 informed consent patients are educated about what

9 those risks may be and they make a decision whether

10 or not to undergo those risks.

11 The FDA must add value to the practice of

12 research in this field. I hope that there is a

13 better mechanism, other than stopping us from doing

14 our research, that can exist. Thank you for the

15 opportunity to speak.

16 DR. SALOMON: Thank you. The next speaker

17 is Dr. Sean Tipton, also from the American Society

18 for Reproductive Medicine. Does anyone know, is

19 Dr. Tipton here? Mr. Tipton, sorry. Maybe I could

20 invite the third speaker since there wasn\'t any

21 particular order or priority here, Pamela Madson,

22 from the American Infertility Association.

23 MS. MADSEN: It is an honor to be with all

24 of you here today. It is an encouraging and

25 auspicious start that so many members of the

283

1 medical and scientific research and government

2 communities have come together.

3 For the millions of us who are locked

4 together in the wrenching battles against

5 infertility, this meeting embodies the hope of

6 achieving increasingly effective and safe

7 treatments as quickly as possible because we have

8 no time to waste.

9 The population of the infertile is

10 growing, with one in six couples actively

11 experiencing problems. Let\'s be clear, we are raw.

12 Recent headlines made public what most of us

13 already know, that our collective ignorance about

14 fertility is extracting an enormous toll. That

15 women who delayed childbearing, either by choice or

16 force of circumstance, feel duped out of their shot

17 at genetic motherhood. That their partners, who

18 also long for the children that are uniquely

19 theirs, are just as saddened and infuriated by the

20 loss. That the individual and societal costs of

21 infertility are intolerable. Let me respond to

22 you, no, it is not life-threatening; it is

23 life-stopping.

24 What do we do about it? Certainly we

25 raise public awareness about infertility, its

284

1 prevalence, its causes and prevention. We make a

2 concerted effort to educate everyone about the

3 human reproductive life cycle. But we must also

4 rededicate ourselves to refining the infertility

5 treatments we have and to discovering new ones.

6 Like any other ruthless disease, infertility

7 ravages not just the immediate sufferers but their

8 families and friends, employers, peers and

9 employees. With age, a genetic inheritance, a

10 physiological fluke or a medical condition is to

11 blame, all those affected by infertility have one

12 thing in common, an urgent need for reliable paths

13 to biological parenthood.

14 As patients, we understand, to a large

15 extent, that the fees we pay for services propel

16 developments in reproductive technology. It is

17 worth noting, however, that we are here when our

18 government does not provide any funding for

19 research. Yes, we need more embryo research. No,

20 it is not funded by our government. We are

21 cognizant of the risks we voluntarily take as the

22 subjects of clinical experimentation that are

23 required to move the research expeditiously. We

24 know that we are treading on uncharted territory.

25 To date, ooplasm transfer research offers

285

1 the greatest potential to help women with oocyte

2 problems. It is potential. We need research, we

3 need it to move forward. It is the avenue that

4 seems to be leading to many different technologies

5 that may deal with the multiple forms of

6 egg-related infertility. We want to do everything

7 we can to facilitate this work because right now,

8 as far as we know, there is nothing else.

9 Of course, we are concerned that

10 researchers adhere to the highest standards

11 possible. It is not only our health at stake, but

12 the health of future generations as well. We have

13 always relied on the twin mechanisms of IRBs and

14 informed patient consent, and it is our

15 understanding that the system has worked reasonably

16 well.

17 As willing participants in experimental

18 procedures, patients have the right to honest and

19 forthright information before giving consent. That

20 includes anticipated outcomes and possible

21 pitfalls; what is known and best guesses about what

22 isn\'t. We wonder why IRBs can\'t be overhauled to

23 include a broader array of interests\--patient

24 advocates and possibly government representatives

25 among them. We wonder why we don\'t have uniform

286

1 IRB standards. This is likely to be far less

2 intrusive and economically onerous than the

3 creation of an entirely new system.

4 If, however, the government is committed

5 in its current plans, we do urge restraint. We

6 would like to know that government federal

7 guidelines will not be so cumbersome and expensive

8 that they inhibit researchers from pursuing

9 promising leads. We want to know that the costs of

10 regulation which are passed down to consumers will

11 be reasonable and contained. Remember, most of the

12 infertile around this country are paying out of

13 pocket. We don\'t have coverage.

14 Otherwise, we jeopardize the access to

15 treatment for all but a very wealthy few. As it

16 is, the financial burden of largely uninsured

17 reproductive technology puts an enormous strain on

18 the infertile. We are asking that we build on the

19 cooperation and open communication that we have

20 witnessed here today, and we would urge, if we are

21 going to work together, that whatever body it is,

22 whether it is through overhauling of systems that

23 are in place or a new body, that it be composed of

24 regulators, researchers, reproductive clinicians

25 and patient advocates to ensure that politics do

287

1 not interfere with the community\'s need for

2 scientific breakthroughs. We are depending on a

3 true collaborative process. The infertile cannot

4 afford, and do not deserve any less. Thank you.

5 DR. SALOMON: Very nicely spoken. As I

6 said, we are going to take basically a ten-minute

7 break. It is 4:15 right now. We will start again

8 at 4:25 regardless of anyone who isn\'t here, just

9 so you take me seriously this time. I want to make

10 sure we have enough time. Thanks.

11 \[Brief recess\]

12 Questions to the Committee

13 DR. SALOMON: To initiate the final phase

14 of this afternoon and where things have to come

15 together, all the different pieces that we have

16 explored all day, is in dealing with a series of

17 specific FDA questions. These will be briefly

18 reviewed by Dr. Moos.

19 DR. MOOS: I am just going to try and tie

20 together a few things that we have heard today by

21 way of introducing our list of questions. I am not

22 going to subject you to a detailed reiteration of

23 this list; it is in the briefing package.

24 The first thing I want to say is directed

25 to the folks whom we consider really the most

288

1 important people in the room, who are the patient

2 interest advocates. I think that if you have a

3 look at the kinds of questions we have been asking

4 and discussing, implicit in the entire format of

5 the meeting and the discussion is that we have no

6 intention of stopping any kind of research. Our

7 intention is to balance carefully the avoidable

8 risks and the benefits in a way that we optimize

9 the balance between the two.

10 To do that, we need to make use of the

11 best scientific and medical evidence and analysis.

12 I think the presenters have done an excellent job

13 of laying out much of the critical information that

14 we will need to make use of to synthesize how we go

15 ahead with this.

16 Many of our judgments will depend on some

17 kind of treatment of numerical data. We have seen

18 a great many mentions of how small the numbers are

19 and what the statistics are like. And, one of the

20 things which, over in the FDA corner, we found very

21 striking is just this fact. We heard some very

22 useful information suggesting that experiments

23 might be quite feasible and relatively

24 straightforward to design that would satisfy us

25 that heteroplasmy per se represents a manageable

289

1 risk.

2 But there is a fly in the ointment,

3 particularly with respect to the incidence of

4 Turner syndrome that has been reported in some of

5 the data. We know that it is very common. The

6 best information that we can get out of the

7 literature suggests that the incidence of Turner

8 syndrome in the general population is perhaps 1/100

9 conceptions, not live births but conceptions. If

10 someone wants to weigh in with a better number, we

11 are all ears. In contrast, the series that has

12 been reported has an incidence of 23 percent, more

13 than 20-fold higher. If you factor in the

14 biochemical pregnancies, which were very likely

15 aneuploid, the figure becomes higher.

16 We acknowledge that the confidence

17 interval around 3/13 is very, very large, but this

18 is something that can\'t be ignored. There are a

19 couple of scenarios. We can reduce this with

20 respect to the efficacy question either to a

21 situation in which ooplasm transfer has no

22 beneficial effect on fertility, in which case the

23 additional risks of instrumentation, of

24 superovulation and so forth are not reasonable, or

25 that it does give a boost, in which case the

290

1 potential to bring marginal embryos that perhaps

2 should not come to term to a point where something

3 bad might happen actually exists. So, this is an

4 issue that we have not heard sufficient discussion

5 on and that I would like for the committee to keep

6 in mind as we tackle the question.

7 If we can address the salient safety

8 issues, I just want to say one or two words about

9 product characterization. There has been I think a

10 very interesting discussion about what it is that

11 is doing something. I would like to point out that

12 the better we characterize the material that is

13 being transferred, the better we will be able to

14 manage those risks from a number of standpoints.

15 There will be questions that we will need to

16 consider both to initiate experiments in what we

17 call Phase I or safety studies, and there will be

18 questions that we will need to confront at the time

19 of the licensure which will, indeed, require much

20 more detailed information about what is in the

21 product that is making it work and definitive proof

22 that the product, in fact, is working.

23 With that brief introduction to the

24 questions, I will yield the floor to our chairman,

25 with thanks for his able service, and to all the

291

1 members of the committee and panelists for the

2 discussion today. Thank you.

3 DR. SALOMON: Thank you very much. So,

4 there are two pages of questions, but some of them

5 are more important than others and I will do my

6 best to prioritize them.

7 As stated here, to me, there are a couple

8 of principal goals. The first is to determine

9 whether there are data available right now that

10 support the safety or support the rationale for

11 ooplasm transfer that is sufficient to justify any

12 perceived risk involved in the clinical trial. We

13 need to deal with that.

14 We also need to determine a separate

15 issue, what additional data are needed prior to

16 initiation of a broader use of this technology or

17 clinical trials if the first discussion should come

18 to the conclusion that clinical trials shouldn\'t go

19 forward.

20 So, I think there are a couple of

21 different options that the committee can now

22 consider. You can consider that, no, there is not

23 enough data; no clinical trials. But you can\'t

24 just say that. You have to say what exactly has to

25 be done. We have to come to some grips with the

292

1 concept of where is the bar going to be set for

2 this. We can also say, no, there is sufficient

3 data; go forward with clinical trials but, in

4 parallel, we need additional data. You know, you

5 need to be show us evidence that the field is

6 working on these additional data but we can also

7 then go forward and talk about what is a good

8 clinical trial. So, I think that is a major issue.

9 We can\'t leave without really trying to come to

10 grips with it.

11 A second major issue to me is regardless

12 of the answer to either of those, even though they

13 have such important immediate implications, another

14 issue here is to begin at least a dialogue with the

15 community regarding what you will need to

16 characterize this product. I mean, that is going

17 to be something that you can\'t change. Whether we

18 are talking about islet transplantation,

19 therapeutic gene transfer in any number of cells,

20 stem cells of any sort, you have to have a sense of

21 product. We are not talking about, \"hey, trust me

22 with this wonderfully ethical group of scientists,\"

23 it has to be, \"trust me, we are going to do this in

24 40 centers, in 50 states and charge money for it.\"

25 I mean, that is okay. That is fine; that is the

293

1 American way. But in the process of doing that,

2 the direction that the FDA has to have from us is

3 how you are going to make sure that in 50 states

4 and 50 places or 100 places, or whatever, there is

5 a sense of objective measurements for the quality

6 of the product, what we call lot release criteria.

7 Those things are much more difficult to do in a

8 biologic. I know that. We all know that. But

9 they are not impossible.

10 So, with that background let\'s start kind

11 of with the first concept. I am getting off the

12 strict question order a little bit but I am going

13 to do that on purpose. So, the first question here

14 is we have heard the clinical presentations and I

15 have to start with a discussion of is there enough

16 data, preclinical or clinical, right now to do a

17 human clinical trial? Let\'s assume that that is a

18 really good clinical trial that is going to answer

19 a question, just are we comfortable doing a

20 clinical trial or should we say, no, we are not

21 comfortable; it should be put on hold and then we

22 have to set a bar?

23 MS. WOLFSON: Well, as one of the few

24 non-scientists here, first of all, I would like to

25 say I really thought that Lori posed very

294

1 interesting questions and I don\'t think you can

2 answer your question without kind of addressing all

3 of those questions.

4 From what I have heard and what I have

5 read up to this point, I do not think we have

6 enough clinical data to allow human studies in any

7 form. I think that there are so many things that

8 have to be answered that haven\'t been answered.

9 When Lori spoke about informed consent, I thought

10 to myself, well, it is one thing for a couple to

11 give informed consent for any dangers that they

12 might encounter, but how can they give informed

13 consent for future generations? I would even

14 wonder if they could really give informed consent

15 for their own possible child if there is a risk

16 that, for instance, there is a 23 percent chance

17 that that child would have Turner syndrome?

18 I think these questions have to be

19 addressed. I don\'t think we got enough information

20 here today to say that there is enough clinical

21 data out there at all.

22 DR. SALOMON: Okay, that is clear. What

23 are other thoughts here?

24 DR. NAVIAUX: An alternative to that would

25 be a limited number of expert centers, one, two\--a

295

1 small number that would be guided by the

2 recommendations of this body in obtaining some of

3 the human data that is necessary in the process of

4 offering the technique. I will leave it at that

5 for now.

6 MS. WOLFSON: Just a point of

7 clarification, do you mean human data as in

8 pregnancies, or are you talking about

9 experimentation with human embryos?

10 DR. NAVIAUX: I think there are practical

11 difficulties. We definitely need the embryo

12 research but we have kind of left the human

13 reproductive technology people out on a limb

14 without any support because there is no mechanism

15 for funding human gamete research. So, yes, I we

16 need that data but, you know, in the U.S. there may

17 not be a mechanism, and someone can correct me

18 perhaps.

19 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Sausville?

20 DR. SAUSVILLE: I think there returns a

21 little bit to the importance of the animal

22 experiments that were discussed previously.

23 Recognizing that the lack of support for human

24 gamete related research and subsequent production

25 of zygotes is an issue that is ultimately one that

296

1 this committee does not have the purview to, shall

2 we say, change, I do think that the scientific

3 rationale that might emerge from a considerably

4 larger body of research that can be funded on

5 animal-related matters would increase my enthusiasm

6 for the possibility, and possibly the fact, that

7 there is something actually happening here. We

8 heard that we don\'t know what components of this

9 process convey a salubrious outcome. Maybe the

10 whole combination of things is necessary, but then

11 that gets to the product issue that was raised. I

12 mean, do you define this product as having a lot of

13 ATP? Do you define it as having a certain minimum

14 level of ATP or calcium, or whatever you favorite

15 component is?

16 So, to me, while I actually want the field

17 to move ahead and potentially give what benefit it

18 can within the context of its limitations, I just

19 feel that in comparison to many other therapies

20 that have come to this committee before, some of

21 which are very specialized, in each case the

22 proponents were able to make the scientific case

23 preclinically for the ones that went forward; that

24 there was a basis for actually regarding this as an

25 ultimately successful outcome and I don\'t actually

297

1 see that here.

2 DR. SALOMON: Lori?

3 MS. KNOWLES: I just want to make the

4 point that it is true, and we are obviously not

5 going to discuss it at any length, that there is a

6 lack of publicly funded human embryo research, but

7 there is private money for human embryo research

8 and the fact that there isn\'t public money for it

9 doesn\'t, to me, say that then you skip that stage

10 and do the experimentation in humans, live humans.

11 So, if you actually want to be able to

12 offer this technique and make money from it, you

13 have to do the experimentation that shows that it

14 is safe. It is just part of the equation, the way

15 that I see it.

16 DR. SALOMON: I just want to point out

17 that here is where it gets kind of complicated

18 because we have to be very careful. One is talking

19 about efficacy and one is talking about safety. I

20 am not saying that we don\'t have to discuss both

21 but we need to be careful. Ed is talking about

22 efficacy and I was talking about efficacy, and now

23 you kind of throw in safety, that is okay but we

24 need to be sure that we stay intellectually clear

25 that the domains of safety and efficacy are

298

1 different.

2 MS. KNOWLES: Right, and I actually agree.

3 My feeling is exactly what you were saying, that

4 there are all kinds of information that we can get

5 from animal models\--it sounds like, about the

6 efficacy.

7 DR. SAUSVILLE: And I would go so far as

8 to say that both safety and efficacy are uncertain

9 to me.

10 DR. VAN BLERKOM: As far as efficacy, we

11 are dealing with long-standing infertile couples,

12 women whether have been through lots of treatments

13 unsuccessfully. What animal model do you propose

14 that will be relevant? I mean, as far as a mouse,

15 put in cytoplasm and get mice. Would you use a

16 primate model. I don\'t know if there are any

17 long-standing infertile Macaques. Maybe there are.

18 So, I am not sure about the relevancy specifically

19 of animal models.

20 I think the basic question is, is this

21 effective? If you look at all the publications on

22 cytoplasm transfer, they all say we don\'t know that

23 this is effective. We don\'t know what is causing,

24 if anything, a boost in efficacy. So, I think in

25 reality what it is going to come down to is that

299

1 the only system that is really suitable for a test

2 of efficacy is going to be the human. I just don\'t

3 see an animal system providing the types of

4 information that you would like to see.

5 DR. SAUSVILLE: I would respectfully

6 suggest that while I can understand the ultimate

7 human relevance of both the use of the procedure

8 and the judgment of its value, what we are talking

9 about here is the setting up of some boundary

10 conditions which would begin to be able to be

11 applied to that which is used in this critical

12 human experiment. I mean, the very presentation

13 that I believe came from you showed that there is a

14 great deal of variability in terms of where you

15 stick the needle, the different types of eggs\--I

16 mean, this becomes very problematic, therefore, for

17 deciding how we would set up the human experiments,

18 at least to me it does.

19 DR. VAN BLERKOM: That is the whole point.

20 I think the human experiment is unique, unique in

21 the sense that I think there are confounding issues

22 that happen in human eggs that you are not going to

23 find in other species.

24 DR. SIEGEL: May I interrupt? We really

25 need to focus this in a context that will be more

300

1 useful to us if we are trying to deal with the

2 questions. The question you asked is whether there

3 is enough data to do clinical research but then you

4 are focusing on the efficacy side. We worded our

5 question somewhat differently, and for a reason,

6 and that has to do with what our regulatory

7 authorities are. I would like to have this

8 discussion within the context of what our

9 regulatory authorities are.

10 So, your question bears some significant

11 similarity to question number three, which I would

12 like to take just a moment to read and explain the

13 context of why it is worded that way. Are these

14 data, referring to the clinical and preclinical

15 data currently availability, sufficient to

16 determine that ooplasm transfer does not present an

17 unreasonable and significant risk to offspring and

18 mother, and to support further clinical

19 investigations?

20 The determination we need to make

21 specifically is whether there is an unreasonable

22 and significant risk. That is largely a safety

23 determination, but what risks are reasonably and

24 what risks are not reasonable is clearly linked to

25 the issues of what disease is being treated, what

301

1 the prospective outcome is and how strong is the

2 rationale. So, efficacy does figure in but we are

3 not going to decide simply that because we don\'t

4 think that this is going to work; you shouldn\'t

5 study it in humans to find that out. So, the

6 question is a little more safety oriented in the

7 context.

8 DR. SALOMON: Right. We don\'t always

9 agree on how I get there but I am trying to get

10 there.

11 \[Laughter\]

12 If you will indulge me just a little

13 longer, not too much longer\--

14 DR. SIEGEL: Now that I am on record, you

15 go where you want to go but I hope we will get to

16 where we need to get.

17 DR. SALOMON: Fair enough. I don\'t want

18 to delve too deep, I just want to stay on the

19 surface here but I still want to just get a sense

20 of the committee along the lines of where we are

21 starting here. We have been doing a pretty good

22 job of that and we have identified this sort of

23 knife-edge balance between efficacy and safety and,

24 in that case, what Dr. Siegel just said is

25 absolutely true because what we are going to do

302

1 then is dive into the safety side. But I would

2 just like to hear a few more minutes of the

3 gut-level feeling at this point of should this

4 discussion go more toward\--we need to deal with the

5 safety issues and then step in and say, okay, what

6 is the good clinical design because we are going to

7 go forward with clinical design, or we are going to

8 say, no, this committee does not feel that a

9 clinical design is appropriate now so we had better

10 set a bar in preclinical studies for safety. I am

11 trying to decide where we are going to go as a way

12 of guiding myself. So, Dr. Murray and then Dr.

13 Rao.

14 DR. MURRAY: I think I want to ask what

15 for me, at least, is a prior question, one that I

16 have to get an answer to before I can answer the

17 one you gave me. There is an expression in my

18 field, bioethics, which is that ethics begin with

19 the facts and I don\'t know all the facts I need to

20 know at this point. I have heard a lot of raw

21 information. I would really like to hear the

22 considered judgments of a number of the scientists

23 around here about what we actually know about

24 safety and, if not efficacy, about the plausibility

25 of the mechanisms by which this intervention is

303

1 presume to have its positive effect.

2 I certainly have to defer to Jonathan

3 about animal models and what is an adequate animal

4 model, but it seems to me we were getting answers

5 to some of those questions from animal data. They

6 may not be animal models in some very cosmically

7 broad sense but I feel a lot better about the risks

8 for heteroplasmy now having heard the discussion

9 that took place after lunch here. I am much less

10 worried about it than I was when I first read the

11 papers.

12 So, I think there is a lot of wisdom that

13 has come in front of us today. It would be nice to

14 see that digested, get kind of a best read on it,

15 and then I would be ready to talk about the human

16 trials.

17 DR. SALOMON: My response to you is you

18 will be one of our bench marks. I will look to you

19 to tell us you have heard enough information. That

20 is important. Dr. Rao?

21 DR. RAO: As you said, I don\'t want to

22 dive too deep into this but say that even though we

23 may not have data for efficacy, maybe we have some

24 data from the mouse models for a rationale for why

25 one might want to do ooplasm transfer, and maybe

304

1 that may best be addressed by the doctor, I don\'t

2 know which one; someone right at the end, where

3 they had the mouse model which showed that if you

4 have mitochondrial deficit you actually see

5 degeneration which looks similar, and if you

6 replace those mitochondria you actually see much

7 less degeneration. So, there is a rationale in

8 some sense that, yes, if you transfer something

9 which is present in the cytoplasm you might see

10 some improvement. That certainly doesn\'t address

11 what happens in human but it does give you a

12 rationale for why you may want to try and address

13 that therapy.

14 On the safety side too, I think if one

15 defines the problem and says that, well, what you

16 are doing is a procedure which is very similar to

17 what you are already doing in ICSI where you have a

18 lot of expertise, then you have a lot of data,

19 clinical data with humans in the appropriate model

20 on safety. What you don\'t have in those models is

21 safety in terms of the issues that were raised here

22 in terms of heteroplasmy and in terms of what Dr.

23 Mulligan raised in the sense of what happens with

24 naked DNA transfer or what happens with chromosomal

25 damage.

305

1 So, maybe we should compartmentalize it a

2 little bit and say that there is a rationale. We

3 don\'t have any data on efficacy maybe, and we have

4 some data on safety, except in sort of critical

5 issues.

6 DR. MULLIGAN: Yes, I think the data issue

7 is very key to think about what would you consider

8 the definition of data versus a rationale. I think

9 that is the mystery we are having here. I think

10 there is no data. I think that every scientist has

11 to figure out where he wants to set the bar. Even

12 if you set the bar really low, there is no data.

13 Yet, there is some rationale, and the rationale,

14 probably my bright ten-year old could come up with

15 listening to me talk about how injecting things

16 into cells can change their function. While we

17 dance around all the embryo work, and whatever,

18 yes, there is a rationale. It is a pretty simple

19 rationale that, of course, you can profoundly

20 affect the way a cell functions by introducing

21 things into it. So, I think there is no data and I

22 would like to have some controversy stirred up

23 about that.

24 From the safety point of view, I think

25 this is so clearly a gene transfer issue that the

306

1 safety issues ought to be focused on essentially

2 what is an unwanted substance in the product that

3 could have a safety effect. I can tell you from a

4 background in gene transfer, and I am an expert in

5 that little narrow part of things, and you can get

6 very, very different efficiencies of gene transfer

7 by doing the method in different ways, things that

8 are typically efficiencies that are one tenth or

9 fifth can be 40 percent if you do it differently.

10 So, I see this no different than the whole

11 regulatory process with gene therapy vectors where

12 having someone say, well, that isn\'t going to

13 happen, or there isn\'t enough DNA there, or we do

14 this all the time is and it just can\'t happen.

15 These guys are laughing. They have heard that

16 before.

17 So, I would say that my concern, based on

18 the whole process in the gene therapy field, is

19 that this is an analogous case where setting the

20 bar as low as you want for efficacy, there is still

21 no data. But maybe there are some things that can

22 be done. There is clearly some rationale but it

23 ought to be focused on essentially what are you

24 essentially doing? What are you injecting? And,

25 what toxic substances or things that can cause some

307

1 risk are in it? I would think that trying to

2 document what kind of tests, checking for whether

3 or not there is chromosomal DNA or naked

4 mitochondrial DNA are things that are supportable.

5 They are not embryo types of things. And, those

6 would be very important, as well as to characterize

7 the consistency, as best you can, of what you are

8 going to use, like count the mitochondria or

9 measure the amount of DNA, just so that in the

10 future you may be able to draw some correlations

11 between some of the most obvious types of things.

12 DR. SALOMON: I think we will continue.

13 That is a nice beginning to dive into where I

14 promised Jay I would go in a few minutes, the

15 safety issues, because I think that takes us there.

16 Dr. Shoubridge and then Dr. Casper.

17 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I don\'t think the problem

18 with mitochondrial DNA is a real safety issue here.

19 I think the chance of getting naked mitochondrial

20 DNA to do anything real bad, or even getting it, is

21 zero essentially in this kind of a procedure. When

22 you can do subcellular fractionation, and you don\'t

23 get much more severe methods than this, you just

24 don\'t get naked mitochondrial DNA unless you

25 isolate DNA. So, certainly the nuclear genomes is

308

1 another issue.

2 For me, the safety issue that revolves

3 around heteroplasmy\--it is almost impossible to get

4 that information in humans because if we take our

5 mice as an example and look at the tissue that had

6 the strongest effect for selecting for one

7 genotype, it took basically the mouse\'s lifetime to

8 do that. It is quite a slow process. So, if we

9 just extrapolate to the human it could take decades

10 to find out whether that is ever going to happen.

11 So, I don\'t think realistically we are ever going

12 to have that information to go on.

13 But coming back to something, Dr.

14 Mulligan, that you said earlier on, to me it is

15 crucial to establish, and it would change the whole

16 nature of the enterprise whether mitochondria are

17 important here at all. There, I think Dr. Casper\'s

18 mouse model, even though it may not be perfect, he

19 has injected mitochondria and shown some effects

20 there. And, I can think of a list of what I think

21 would be pretty decent experiments, some of them

22 genetic and some of them not, that would tell you

23 whether mitochondria or at least the energy

24 metabolism part of mitochondria are at all

25 important in this process. If you could come to

309

1 the conclusion that they weren\'t, then we wouldn\'t

2 even be having a lot of this discussion because the

3 heteroplasmy issue would be a non-issue. It would

4 be another factor and then maybe we would be

5 interested in the biological effects of putting in

6 pieces of spindles, or having a centriole, or

7 having an RNA population, or something like that.

8 So, to me, it would be critically

9 important to establish whether or not mitochondria

10 are in fact important in human embryos in a

11 research situation. I don\'t know if you would call

12 that clinical research because the endpoint here

13 wouldn\'t be pregnancies. You would have to have

14 some other endpoint, like morphology objectively

15 determined or some biochemical endpoint in an

16 embryo. And you would have to use the mouse

17 models. As imperfect as they are, it is the best

18 we have.

19 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Casper and then I will

20 take us into dealing with the first question on the

21 safety issue.

22 DR. CASPER: You asked earlier about gut

23 feeling responses also. I can tell you just from

24 doing clinical IVF for many years and dealing with

25 patients who have repeated fragmented of rested

310

1 embryos, it is my impression that it is not a

2 condition that corrects spontaneously. So, I think

3 the fact that there have been pregnancies produced

4 in that group of patients with this procedure

5 suggests to me that there is probably something

6 that is working, although we don\'t have the numbers

7 to actually support that.

8 So, I think what we have essentially at

9 this point is the equivalent of a pilot study that

10 demonstrates potential efficacy, and I think it is

11 worthwhile to move on to some more significant

12 research studies.

13 I think the most important thing, however,

14 is to find out what it is that actually makes this

15 work. I think it is also important to do away with

16 ooplasm transfer because, first of all, we don\'t

17 really want to have to subject women to egg

18 donation in order to make this work. If we could

19 figure out what the actual component is we could

20 use that component perhaps without having to get

21 donor eggs. Secondly, the cytoplasm injections

22 also have that small but inherent risk of

23 transferring genomic DNA as well.

24 So, I think there probably is some

25 efficacy to this procedure. I think it probably

311

1 does warrant going ahead with clinical and animal

2 trials, but on a more specific level to try to find

3 out what it is that is actually working in the

4 transfer.

5 DR. SALOMON: That is good. You touched

6 on something for me. You know, I have been trying

7 to decide for my own self, independent of my job as

8 chair, when I say, well, we should do some clinical

9 research at the same time we are advancing our

10 understanding in the basic models. I am kind of

11 leaning in that direction. Then I think of things

12 like, well, if you really don\'t know whether it is

13 the mitochondria or some sort of soluble element,

14 maybe you ought to know that before you do the

15 clinical studies and that has all kinds of safety

16 implications, and we will come back to that.

17 The other thing is if you don\'t need to

18 use an oocyte donor if you, for example, could do

19 it from a human embryonic stem cell, you know, if

20 you could do that then wouldn\'t that be an ethical

21 step in the right direction in the sense that now

22 you wouldn\'t be involving the invisible woman? I

23 thought that was an interesting visual. Or, you

24 could use somatic cells from the mother even.

25 So, there are some other questions here

312

1 that could have really profound implications as to

2 how the procedure was done without saying that this

3 procedure actually would work and, yet, get the

4 benefits for the infertile mothers which I think

5 was well articulated in the public comment period.

6 So, that is a dynamic I guess we will have to deal

7 with for the rest of the next hour or so.

8 Speaking in terms of risks to the

9 offspring then, the FDA proposes four specific

10 issues that directly affect risks to the offspring,

11 all dancing around the concept of how the procedure

12 might damage or alter the oocyte\--mechanical

13 damage, inadvertent transfer of chromosomes and

14 chromosome fragments or cellular constituents,

15 enhanced survival of abnormal embryos and risks

16 with heteroplasmy. We don\'t have to do an hour

17 discussion of this because we have already touched

18 on a lot of aspects of this, but let\'s deal with

19 these four specific issues of safety.

20 Number one, mechanical damage to oocyte

21 architecture. What do you guys think? Dr. Rao?

22 DR. RAO: I just want to reiterate that

23 there is a lot of data for ICSI and there is no

24 difference in the procedure, except for additional

25 volume injections, in terms of mechanical damage.

313

1 So, I would say, from what I have heard, that it

2 seems that the amount of mechanical damage should

3 be the same and there is data from lots of

4 successful births.

5 DR. SALOMON: So, is that true? I have no

6 clue. I mean, is it true that the amount of

7 physical puncturing of the recipient cells is

8 identical for ICSI as for that? That is a fair

9 point from everything I have heard today. There

10 are issues that you are injecting cytoplasm,

11 whereas before you were injecting the sperm in some

12 sort of natural buffer. Right?

13 AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: \[Not at microphone;

14 inaudible.\]

15 DR. SALOMON: So, would you say there is

16 an incrementally, albeit incrementally small,

17 difference with the ooplasm injection because of

18 the volume issue? Fair enough.

19 DR. MURRAY: There are people here more

20 qualified than I am to recite all the data on

21 ICSI\'s impact on children but, as I recall it,

22 there is some increase in various abnormalities

23 over the natural background rate, although it is

24 not an outrageous increase, and there is I think

25 roughly a doubling of low birth rate among the

314

1 children, and low birth weight is a predictor of a

2 lot of later problems. But, again, so far at least

3 those have been deemed to be acceptable I guess by

4 the people who employ them.

5 DR. SALOMON: So, the point here now is

6 that ICSI is essentially close to, maybe slightly

7 incrementally different but I think we can live

8 with that incremental difference for safety. Now

9 the question is what increase in risk does ICSI

10 cause versus age-matched infertile women?

11 DR. SABLE: Just to address the ICSI

12 questions, once one factors out the couples who

13 conceive who would never conceive on their own

14 because there is no sperm in the ejaculate, and

15 these are couples where the sperm has to be

16 literally surgically removed from the testicle,

17 once you factor those couples out\--and these are

18 not people to be doing cytoplasmic transfer\--the

19 risks drop down to the background risk.

20 Regarding the low birth weight, that is a

21 study that actually included all IVF patients,

22 including the ICSI patients. There did not seem to

23 be an incremental increase in risk of low birth

24 weight versus the background IVF population, just

25 to clarify that.

315

1 DR. SALOMON: So, for question number one

2 I assume that there is a fairly high level of

3 comfort here, comfort as defined by mechanical

4 damage to the oocyte cytoarchitecture induced by

5 this procedure is incrementally small over the

6 overall risk of these procedures that are already

7 ongoing.

8 DR. SAUSVILLE: Right, I would say numbers

9 one and four under the bullet \"risks to offspring\"

10 are obviously there and are things that are

11 reasonably tolerable or at least known, recognizing

12 the long-term risks associated with heteroplasmy

13 have been extensively discussed that are at one

14 level unknowable but that are intrinsic to the

15 procedure.

16 I guess I am more concerned with numbers

17 two and three. As Dr. Mulligan articulated, the

18 procedures that are currently in place do seem to

19 be somewhat uncontrolled on whether or not matters

20 of technique or instrumentation can minimize the

21 likelihood of chromosomal fragments being an issue.

22 Lastly, we heard the figure cited by Dr.

23 Moos about if one just does the crude calculation,

24 there is approximately 20-some odd incidence of

25 major abnormalities in the series that have been

316

1 reported so far. So, I am a little concerned that

2 that is a higher level of abnormality than I at

3 least would feel comfortable with.

4 MS. KNOWLES: I don\'t want to get off

5 topic if we want to follow this up but since you

6 were taking about number one and four, my feeling

7 about number four, and this may in fact be just a

8 question of my ignorance of the animal models, what

9 I have heard is that we have some limited work in

10 mice that shows that this is not a problem. Yet, I

11 have also heard a discussion that the mouse models

12 are, in fact, not something that we can really use

13 to translate for other questions to the humans.

14 So, I am not a hundred percent convinced that that

15 does away with all of the questions about

16 heteroplasmy. So, I also wonder if there isn\'t

17 some kind of closer animal model, like a non-human

18 primate, that we could do a study in heteroplasmy

19 that might be quite useful. Perhaps I just don\'t

20 understand.

21 DR. SAUSVILLE: I could respond to that, I

22 think we agree that the actual risk or the

23 dimensions in which heteroplasmy would enter being

24 something that could be considered an adverse event

25 are actually unknown. I agree entirely with your

317

1 analysis. I guess to me, from the standpoint of

2 writing an informed consent, it becomes at one

3 level something that could be state, look, we don\'t

4 know anything about this and I could imagine

5 scenarios where, if donors were properly screened

6 for the known mitochondrial issues etc., that one

7 might reasonably take the risk of tolerating that

8 statement, recognizing that it is an unknown.

9 My issues with respect to number two, that

10 is very much, in my mind, a matter of how the

11 technique would actually be practiced on an

12 individual sense and, therefore, is a potential

13 basis of extraordinary variability.

14 With respect to number three, I am

15 concerned that the incidence of 20-some odd

16 percent recognizing, if that is true and the issue

17 of how broad the error bars are, ultimately society

18 is going to be asked to, at one level, take care of

19 these children in some way or fashion. So, to

20 countenance a technique that has that level of

21 abnormality generation, if that is truly the

22 number, I think is a matter of concern.

23 DR. MULLIGAN: On that point, if you drop

24 statistics for the efficacy part of things, that is

25 a gut feeling that maybe there is something to

318

1 this, not evoking statistics, then we might as well

2 not evoke statistics for the potential toxic effect

3 too. Since there is not statistically significant

4 info, I think it is important to weigh the data

5 comparably. That is, on one side it looks like

6 there may be difficulty; on the other side there

7 may be some efficacy.

8 DR. SALOMON: I am happy for this

9 discussion. So, we are still focused now maybe

10 more on questions two and three, the inadvertent

11 transfer of chromosomes or the enhanced survival of

12 abnormal embryos, with the emphasis in the last few

13 minutes on the abnormal embryos. What is the

14 feeling of the panel on that?

15 DR. RAO: I would just like to second what

16 Dr. Sausville said, that it is really a big issue

17 and what Dr. Mulligan said, that in a system where

18 you don\'t know, and where you have a spindle and

19 you have DNA, there is a chance of incorporation of

20 extra chromosomal into nucleus is much higher. So,

21 one cannot extrapolate from low amounts and make

22 conclusions, and that we be a really important

23 concern. Likewise, I think the issue of enhanced

24 survival and the society responsibility are really

25 major concerns.

319

1 DR. MULLIGAN: Also, I think there are

2 always more or less competent people. You know,

3 for this sort of thing I am sure it makes a big

4 difference and you are going to have people that

5 are going to do this that, I am positive, are going

6 to be much less competent than the experts that we

7 heard. Therefore, you have to have in place some

8 characterization of what damage can occur, what DNA

9 you can get and so forth.

10 DR. SALOMON: Now speaking for myself, I

11 absolutely agree with that. That is why I said

12 earlier on that no matter how we end up, the field

13 has to accept the mantle toward understanding what

14 it is their product is, what they are injecting.

15 Even if that is not absolutely settled in the first

16 trials, that is fine but that is the direction this

17 has to go for all those reasons. It is not just to

18 do it in three or four really wonderful

19 laboratories, which is where it has been done up to

20 now, but it is doing it in 40 or 50.

21 DR. CASPER: I think we have to be a bit

22 careful because the numbers are so small in terms

23 of looking at chromosomal abnormalities, and so on.

24 Just as an analogy, there was a paper published

25 concerning sex chromosome abnormalities in ICSI

320

1 offspring that showed a 33 percent incidence of sex

2 chromosome abnormalities but it was based on 15

3 pregnancies, and here we are talking about less

4 than 20 pregnancies. Whether that 20 percent

5 figure is going to hold up or not, I very much

6 doubt it. I think it will be very much lower,

7 probably close to baseline if you got to the

8 position where you had enough pregnancies to

9 actually look at. I understand that we are talking

10 about small numbers but that can just magnify a

11 problem out of proportion.

12 DR. SCHON: Could you elaborate on why you

13 believe that is a tenable position?

14 DR. CASPER: Only based on the previous

15 experience with ICSI which really didn\'t hold up at

16 all. The initial paper that came out, suggesting

17 that there was a 33 percent abnormality rate turned

18 out not to be correct at all when people started to

19 examine hundreds of ICSI pregnancies.

20 DR. MURRAY: I am definitely not a

21 statistician but this is the classic case of why

22 take that point of view. I mean, it could be a

23 statistical abnormality in either direction. I

24 don\'t understand why it is that in this particular

25 case this will turn out to be in the wrong

321

1 direction. I just don\'t get the logic behind why

2 that would be the case. You are saying that in one

3 other case there is a side effect that turned out

4 not to prove to be statistically significant. I

5 mean, how many hundreds of examples of that sort of

6 thing are the case? But there are also cases where

7 the data set shows you a certain percentage and

8 then the next data set shows twice that percentage.

9 I just don\'t understand it. I don\'t get it.

10 DR. CASPER: It just seems to me that that

11 is a very high number. It is out of proportion to

12 the sorts of chromosomal abnormalities that we see

13 with most assisted reproductive technology type

14 procedures. That is all. I am just saying that I

15 think we have to be careful in interpreting the

16 numbers because the numbers are so small at this

17 point.

18 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Moos?

19 DR. MOOS: It is worth stirring into the

20 pot the consideration that we don\'t know the

21 prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities in the

22 population of women presenting these procedures.

23 It may be significantly higher than in the normal,

24 healthy population. So, we don\'t know the

25 denominator. It is, however, impossible to ignore

322

1 this even if, given the sample size, it is a

2 statistically improbably event, not likely to be

3 repeated. Dr. Mulligan\'s point that the coin could

4 come up heads or tails I think is perfectly well

5 taken.

6 DR. SAUSVILLE: But to me that is all the

7 more cause for some of the product characteristic

8 issues that we just talked about previously. After

9 some sort of modeling process and after figuring

10 out whether mitochondria are necessary, and whether

11 it is the RNA that is doing it, we come forward

12 with a pristine, let\'s say, product and there still

13 may be evidence of this occurring, then that would

14 become a more obvious conclusion. As the issue

15 stands now, if this outcome were to occur we would

16 not know whether any of those other things, plus

17 the intrinsic susceptibility of the recipient egg

18 to this sort of thing would be relevant.

19 DR. MURRAY: I am more focused on the

20 second worry, the worry about chromosomal DNA or

21 the cellular fragments, and I cannot disentangle my

22 thinking about that from exactly the point Dr.

23 Sausville was raising. What is it that is

24 operating here? I mean, we are injecting a soup

25 or, maybe even better, a stew into the egg and it

323

1 is full of lots of things, and we sort of roughly

2 know what is in the stew but we have no idea what

3 component or components of the stew are making a

4 difference, if they are making a difference,

5 including the DNA fragments and the other cellular

6 components. Until we have a clear idea, we have a

7 plausible notion of a mechanism and some evidence,

8 and I think it would not be impossible to create

9 some experiments in both animal cells and human

10 embryos that would take us toward answers, it is

11 difficult to justify doing a human trial with the

12 risk of transfer or chromosomal elements until we

13 have a sense of whether they are, in fact, at all

14 necessary in that stew.

15 DR. SAUSVILLE: To be clear, the issue is

16 not only the transfer of chromosomal elements, but

17 multiple experiments, extending back to some of the

18 classical experiments in bacterial genetics, is

19 that DNA is mutagenic. So, it is not only a

20 question of passively adding something, it is

21 something actively altering something.

22 DR. SALOMON: I think the other thing that

23 just came out in last weeks is studies on the

24 nature of the algorithms used to call the number of

25 genes in the human genome. Just to explain that

324

1 for those of you who didn\'t catch the last issue of

2 Nature Biotechnology, the call was that there were

3 30,000 to 40,000 human genes, which upset a lot of

4 humans\--

5 \[LAUGHTER\]

6 \--because there didn\'t seem to be enough

7 genes to make us different than mice and everybody

8 was uncomfortable with that concept. It comes down

9 to the fact that when they really began looking at

10 different ways of calling genes that there may be a

11 lot of RNA transcripts in cytoplasm that encode

12 for\--

13 \[Laughter\]

14 \--see, I told you you would like this

15 stuff! There would be a lot of RNA transcripts

16 that are clearly not called formal genes in the

17 original genome project algorithm. What that also

18 raised was the possibility that a lot of these RNAs

19 wouldn\'t necessarily have to encode proteins but

20 would encode RNA molecules, like ribosomes for

21 example, that have enzymatic activities that alter

22 different cell functionalities. So, I just bring

23 up to you that one thing that we haven\'t talked

24 about that is certainly reasonable to put on the

25 table here is that another uncertainty in the

325

1 safety issue is RNAs that are not transcriptionally

2 active for proteins but, rather, are important

3 perhaps in other cellular functions. I mean, maybe

4 one of the reasons you are getting these XO

5 chromosome abnormalities is some sort of imprinting

6 phenomenon. That is just a wild speculation, but I

7 think it is more than just mitochondrial DNA that

8 is getting transferred that has a genetic lineage.

9 That is just to make it a little more complicated.

10 I am told the other mike is now fixed.

11 You will be the experiment on this.

12 DR. SABLE: I am David Sable, medical

13 director for the Institute for Reproductive

14 Medicine at St. Barnabas. I really want to clarify

15 the very excellent point Dr. Moos made regarding

16 the baseline chromosomal abnormality issue, and I

17 really want to make sure that are assumptions for a

18 control group are appropriate. The pregnancy loss

19 rate in an IVF population at our center, and that

20 is what we are comparing this particular subset to,

21 with a mean age of 37 is 22 percent, and the

22 overwhelming majority of these are chromosomally

23 abnormal, and the single most common chromosomal

24 abnormality in a pregnancy loss is 45 XO. So,

25 these numbers together suggest that we are actually

326

1 very close to the middle of the bell curve. The

2 direction of the conversation seems to keep veering

3 to where we have this assumption that there is this

4 huge discrepancy behind the background population

5 and I don\'t believe the data supports that.

6 DR. SALOMON: That is an excellent point.

7 Before you sit down, the question then would be if

8 we have a population of infertile women, many of

9 whom are older but not all of whom are older, and

10 we now are capable, with this technique or a

11 technique that we are discussing a few months from

12 now, of rescuing a higher percentage of those

13 oocytes, is it not reasonable then to be concerned

14 about all the implications of rescuing embryos with

15 potential genetic abnormalities?

16 DR. SABLE: That is an excellent point,

17 however, let\'s make sure we are not reading too

18 much into a single case. One of the XOs aborted

19 spontaneously.

20 DR. SALOMON: We will stipulate that your

21 point on the XOs was well taken\--

22 DR. SABLE: No, theoretically I agree

23 completely. I just don\'t want to imply or allow us

24 to infer that the data supports that that is

25 actually happening. I think in theory, yes, it is

327

1 the same point that we would be concerned about

2 ourselves, however, I don\'t want to take that

3 additional step and say that the data so far,

4 including the losses we have had, really deviates

5 significantly from what the background control

6 should be.

7 DR. SIEGEL: In that same population

8 though, what is the proportion of 45 XO in the

9 successful live birth pregnancies?

10 DR. SABLE: I am sorry, repeat the

11 question.

12 DR. SIEGEL: You said that 27 percent\--I

13 don\'t want to re-quote your numbers but that 45 XO

14 was a common cause in spontaneously aborted

15 pregnancies, many of which were chromosomal

16 abnormalities. What about in successful

17 pregnancies, what has been your incidence of 45 XO?

18 DR. SABLE: I don\'t think we have had a

19 report of 45 XO, but we have had pregnancies

20 terminated after second trimester genetic testing.

21 Thank you.

22 DR. SALOMON: I think that in general here

23 there is consensus on the part of the committee

24 that there are real safety issues potentially that

25 play in this field, and that the amount of data

328

1 that we have right now in animal models, which we

2 will talk about a little more a little later but

3 for right now the amount of data in the animal

4 models doesn\'t really settle the issue adequately,

5 albeit they contribute in some ways positively, and

6 the data in the human system is just really not

7 adequate to make any statements at all about,

8 neither safety or efficacy. That is my attempt to

9 summarize this first part of the discussion. Does

10 anyone disagree? I told you from the beginning you

11 are welcome to disagree. I am just trying to make

12 sure I am giving you a good summary.

5:30 DR. NOGUCHI: Dan, is it true that there

13

14 are a few safety issues that seem to have been at

15 least allayed to a certain extent? When you are

16 speaking of the human experience I think it is with

17 that caveat that in terms of some of the mechanical

18 parts of ICSI that may be helpful. But you are

19 talking about two and three specifically.

20 DR. SALOMON: I think two, three and four.

21 I think number one, I think everybody kind of

22 agreed, you are right and thanks for pointing that

23 out, we sort of agreed that that didn\'t seem to be

24 a big deal in that they have a lot of experience

25 doing ICSI and this is an incrementally small

329

1 increase. I think we said that, if everybody

2 agrees with that.

3 But for two and three there is clearly

4 some real risk there and the clinical data doesn\'t

5 address it. For four, I don\'t think we really

6 know. I think it is correct to point out that at

7 least the animals are reproductively active and are

8 overtly healthy, but we are not very good mouse

9 veterinarians when it comes to really know what

10 their kidney, heart, liver and other functions are,

11 and living in little sterilized boxes, being

12 perfect food is not really a measure of health

13 either as judged by SKID animals, fine, but look at

14 SKID children. So, the heteroplasmy thing I think

15 still remains an unclear issue.

16 DR. MURRAY: Just to follow-up on that

17 point, Lori Knowles observed, and I believe this is

18 correct, that many of the human manifestations of

19 mitochondrial disease are late onset. So, we would

20 have an issue of would we have an ability to

21 follow-up with such children to see if there are

22 early signs of these later onset diseases. That is

23 not, to me, an absolute barrier to doing it; it is

24 a challenge for us.

25 DR. SALOMON: I think it is an interesting

330

1 similarity to all these other fields that we have

2 dealt with in biology, in gene therapy, cell

3 transplantation and stem cells that there is going

4 to be this demand or strong pressure for long-term

5 follow-up of the recipients.

6 DR. SCHON: I am not that worried about

7 item four, and on the particular case the worry

8 that is being mentioned, let me remind you that

9 this invisible woman is of age 25, 30, 35. She

10 carries the same genotype presumably as whatever is

11 being donated to this child, to this oocyte. The

12 woman donating the cytoplasm is apparently normal.

13 That is why she is donating it. The presumption is

14 that her mitochondria are okay and, therefore, what

15 is being transferred presumably is okay unless

16 there were some random mutation, and these things

17 happen and, in fact, that is what mitochondrial

18 diseases are. So, from that score, I am not all

19 that worried.

20 DR. SIEGEL: Then that is predicated on

21 the assumption that the donor women are screened

22 for mitochondrial disease.

23 DR. SCHON: No, no, the presumption is

24 that the donor woman looks normal when she walks

25 into the clinic.

331

1 DR. SIEGEL: Is that what you would

2 recommend as screening, that she looks normal? Is

3 that what you are saying?

4 DR. SCHON: I will rephrase it. This is

5 serious. Everybody in this room is different.

6 Everybody in this room had different mitochondrial

7 genotype. We all have a sort of societal consensus

8 presumably\--physicians will disagree\--that we are

9 fundamentally normal unless proven otherwise. And,

10 for me to, let\'s say, sequence somebody\'s genome

11 where there are 16,000 factorial possibilities of

12 genotype, and for me to then say that this genotype

13 is good and this one is not good is just not going

14 to happen. You have to have some kind of rule of

15 thumb. To me, if the physician says she passes my

16 criteria for donation, I have no way of saying at a

17 molecular level, except the most rough molecular

18 level, that she is not a candidate.

19 DR. SALOMON: That is a key point,

20 particularly as one of the duties we have to this

21 field, to this group of people here is that we

22 don\'t demand unnecessary testing that is not

23 efficacious or doesn\'t answer the issue.

24 DR. SCHON: We certainly could test for

25 the 150 known mutations. Fine.

332

1 DR. MURRAY: I am wondering if a pedigree

2 would be useful for the cytoplasm provider.

3 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: If you look at the

4 pedigree that I showed in five generations, there

5 was one affected individual that happened in the

6 fifth generation. But I think the number that

7 might be important here is the prevalence of these

8 mutations that we know about in the population. No

9 epidemiological studies have been done in North

10 America, but those that have been done in Europe,

11 in Continental Europe and in the United Kingdom,

12 suggest that it is about one in 8,000 or so, one in

13 8,500. So, the chances of having somebody who

14 looks, to use your words, normal walking into the

15 clinic as a carrier of one of these is pretty slim,

16 and many of these people will manifest some aspect

17 of these disorders which a physician could pick up.

18 So, you have to balance testing the whole genome

19 looking for mutations against the chances that

20 somebody will come in off the street who is a

21 carrier of a pathogenic mutation.

22 DR. SCHON: This returns to the point that

23 I tried to make before, that I think heteroplasmy

24 is not without risk for the reasons that you cited.

25 I see the risk of an active mitochondrial disease

333

1 of being significant is relatively low. What you

2 get into is the unknown of having some sort of

3 interaction between a paternal genome with some

4 maternal mitochondrial genome that would not have

5 gone to fruition otherwise now being in an abnormal

6 context. Again, that is the sort of thing that, in

7 my mind, reflects an unknown procedure and could

8 probably put in some way into an informed consent

9 that could lay that out, not satisfactorily in an

10 absolute sense but in a way that certainly is no

11 different than we attempt to address when we bring

12 an unknown drug to a population for the first time.

13 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: Just to make it clear,

14 the paternal genome sees a new mitochondrial DNA

15 every generation.

16 DR. SCHON: But it is a contextual thing.

17 It is mitochondria in the context of a given

18 maternal gene.

19 DR. MURRAY: I think that your work is so

20 interesting and important to hear because it says

21 that, depending upon the combination of the two,

22 different things can happen. You showed exactly

23 that. Right? So, if you put in something and have

24 a certain maternal copy, it may well behave

25 differently than it had behaved before because

334

1 there is some sort of complicated competition or

2 genetic background in the recipient that will maybe

3 accept that.

4 DR. SCHON: In this case, of course, what

5 we are showing is that there is nuclear genetic

6 control which could just as easily come from mom or

7 dad. You are right. So, I accept the point.

8 DR. MURRAY: I would just say that on the

9 testing I think you would certainly want to test

10 for whatever it is, the 150 known things even

11 though they are infrequent. That is the least you

12 could do.

13 DR. SCHON: It is easy to do.

14 DR. SALOMON: It is easy to do?

15 DR. SCHON: Yes. You would take a sample

16 from the mother and just sequence her genome.

17 DR. SALOMON: Sequence her mitochondrial

18 genome which is, what? 7,000 to 8,000 kb?

19 DR. SCHON: Yes, not kb, 16 kb.

20 DR. SALOMON: Whatever, right. I don\'t

21 know how easy that is.

22 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: No, because you are

23 looking for heteroplasmy and sequencing is the

24 absolute worst way to look for heteroplasmy so it

25 is not a trivial matter.

335

1 DR. SALOMON: This is probably a little

2 too technical. This is something the FDA is going

3 to have to deal with but, again, I feel that one of

4 the things you should hear from us is that I don\'t

5 believe anyone wants to put an unreasonable demand

6 on these people. If it is easy to sequence and

7 find these, then it is easy. Those are the things

8 I hope you will do internally and be fair about it.

9 DR. HURSH: I just want to get out the

10 point that egg donors in the United States are not

11 tested for mitochondrial disease. There is a lot

12 of egg donation going on. If this was a serious

13 problem I think we would have seen it by now.

14 DR. SALOMON: That is another good point.

15 I would like to keep going here because time is

16 getting short.

17 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Just one point, I guess

18 I am not concerned so much about heteroplasmy per

19 se, but I think maybe one issue that needs to be

20 addressed is the extent of heteroplasmy. Is the

21 finding of 50 percent, or 30 percent or 40 percent

22 of donated mitochondria an issue to be concerned

23 with, number one.

24 I guess the other issue, and maybe Dr.

25 Cohen can answer is, is whether or not in

336

1 successful cytoplasmic transfers there have been

2 cases where there are no detectable donated

3 mitochondria, so there is no issue of heteroplasmy

4 at all.

5 DR. COHEN: I think I said that 10/13

6 tested are homoplasmic. So, one could argue that

7 the tests are maybe not sensitive enough and that

8 it changes over time and next year it is better

9 again. The samples are stored and we will check

10 them again when the technology becomes available.

11 DR. VAN BLERKOM: But using the same

12 methodology you were detecting high frequencies, in

13 fact there were ten cases where there was no

14 heteroplasmy.

15 DR. COHEN: That is right.

16 DR. SALOMON: The only other issue I would

17 add to that is that you are testing peripheral

18 blood. One of the problems with peripheral blood

19 testing of something as complex as heteroplasmy\--

20 DR. COHEN: Yes, I would like to biopsy

21 all their vital organs twice a year but it is hard.

22 DR. SALOMON: I wasn\'t trying to be

23 facetious.

24 DR. COHEN: What we try to do is go with

25 pediatric care and when they go to the pediatrician

337

1 we come along. That is sort of what we do. I hear

2 from bioethicists that we have to follow them for

3 life, well, that is a stigma and we have no

4 intention at all to do that.

5 DR. SALOMON: That is good to know.

6 DR. MURRAY: Don\'t over-interpret what has

7 been said here. I think you are taking that way

8 too far. What I heard Dr. Salomon saying was

9 weighing the pertinence of the data that in

10 peripheral blood you are not finding heteroplasmy,

11 one must take into account that one could find it

12 in other tissues because we know there is

13 differential expression, nor were the ethicists

14 that you have heard from today saying that these

15 children must be hounded for life. That is not the

16 point. The point is we have to think about the

17 issue of late onset and how we are going to deal

18 with it. One way to do it is to say it is just

19 impossible; it would be an unreasonable burden.

20 Another way is to try to at least persuade the

21 parents and eventually they will be young people,

22 not children, that it would be very helpful for the

23 future of this procedure for them to make

24 themselves available voluntarily. There are a lot

25 of approaches.

338

1 DR. SALOMON: I would like to go on.

2 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: One small point, all the

3 data we have on humans, which is very limited, and

4 on mice, which is quite a lot, suggests that if you

5 sample one fetal tissue you have sampled them all.

6 So, if you really wanted to determine whether or

7 not a fetus was heteroplasmic you should be able to

8 do it from embryocytes and then you would know.

9 So, the issue of what to sample after birth to

10 determine heteroplasmy is a thorny one and you

11 won\'t solve it. You are not going to biopsy

12 perfectly health children; there is no way. But

13 you could determine it from either a CVS sample or

14 amniocytes.

15 DR. SALOMON: The next big section is the

16 risks to the mother. Might risks to the mother be

17 different from those incurred with established ART

18 procedures? For example, the possibility exists

19 that the ooplasm might enhance the survival of

20 abnormal embryos to incur additional medical risks

21 to the mother, for example late term abortion. Any

22 comments?

23 DR. RAO: I would say we just don\'t know.

24 There is just not enough data; the sample size is

25 too small.

339

1 DR. SALOMON: In the clinical experience

2 we heard today\--I am looking to Dr. Cohen and

3 others for confirmation\--it seems like there was

4 one abortion in the group of three that Dr.

5 Lanzendorf presented. Is that correct? There was

6 one in three. One was a miscarriage and one

7 delivered twins. Is that correct?

8 DR. COHEN: There were a total of 15

9 pregnancies and two were just confirmation of

10 chemical rise in ACG. That was a biochemical

11 pregnancy. There was one who miscarried before.

12 It was after confirmation of the fetal sac but

13 before fetal heart beat.

14 DR. SALOMON: That is early, right.

15 DR. COHEN: That is early, six weeks, five

16 weeks, four weeks. Then there is the one twin that

17 was sustained until amnio.

18 DR. SALOMON: What I was saying there is

19 not an overwhelming amount of evidence yet, albeit

20 the experience is extremely small, that there is a

21 whole bunch of late abortions due to chromosomal

22 abnormalities.

23 DR. COHEN: Not yet.

24 DR. SALOMON: Are the risks to the

25 mother\'s future fertility or ability to engage in

340

1 subsequent ART procedures? Actually, Dr. Cohen,

2 you addressed that specifically, or Dr. Lanzendorf.

3 I remember at least one or two mothers who had

4 failed this and went on to a second procedure and

5 delivered a normal pregnancy, or at least became

6 pregnant. I am not certain they said it was a

7 normal pregnancy. Is that fair?

8 So, I would say here the only way the

9 risks to the mother are going to get established

10 would be a formal clinical trial. I don\'t think

11 this is an issue that is going to get settled by

12 any further discussion here, unless someone

13 disagrees.

14 I would like to go to question number

15 three or four. Three was kind of where I started

16 the afternoon. Are these data sufficient to

17 determine that ooplasm transfer does not present an

18 unreasonable and significant risk to offspring

19 and/or mother, and to support further clinical

20 investigations?

21 We began with our gut-level feelings on

22 it, went into the safety as I promised, and we are

23 sort of back here again. Is there more discussion

24 or do we all feel pretty comfortable with the

25 discussion we have already had?

341

1 DR. SIEGEL: Well, there has been

2 discussion but of a somewhat different and related

3 question. I would like to know the advice of the

4 committee on this question. I would on that point

5 clarify further that, because I gave a partial

6 clarification but I left an important piece out

7 when I said that we put trials on clinical hold

8 based on unreasonable and significant risks. We

9 also put trials on clinical hold based on

10 inadequate information to determine whether there

11 are unreasonable and significant risks. That is

12 what we will do, for example, if we believe that

13 there are important or critical preclinical studies

14 that could be done that would lead to a better

15 assessment of the risks, a better design of the

16 trial, a better informed consent, and so forth,

17 that need to be done before the trials are done.

18 That is sort of where we are going with this

19 question in asking are there sufficient data to

20 make that determination and, if so, is there a

21 determination that there is not unreasonable\--

22 DR. SALOMON: So, let me make sure that we

23 pose this just right because, as I told you at the

24 beginning, I think this is a very key issue that

25 formed my thinking around the discussion we have

342

1 had. If we determined that there is no

2 insufficient data to determine efficacy, regardless

3 of the discussion we have already had about the

4 amount of data sufficient to establish safety, just

5 on the efficacy issue could we advise, or would the

6 FDA agree to put a hold on a set of studies on that

7 basis?

8 DR. SIEGEL: If you were to determine or

9 advise that the rationale for any benefit is so

10 slim as to not justify the perceived risks, then we

11 could do that. So, we do consider risks in the

12 context of rationale but we are not, in general,

13 terribly aggressive on the rationale piece if the

14 hold is based on the risks, and I think where there

15 is scientific disagreement or where there is

16 scientific consensus, or pretty close to consensus

17 or pretty solid evidence that is one thing, but

18 where there is disagreement we are, I think

19 appropriately, reluctant to assess that our

20 assessment of the rationale is better than somebody

21 else\'s who is also appropriately assessing.

22 DR. SALOMON: So, we are back to what I

23 described earlier as a sort of knife\'s edge here.

24 We have some safety issues. There are some

25 efficacy issues, and we need to think again now in

343

1 terms of the discussions we have already had how we

2 are going to balance because that is really an

3 important circle that we have to complete. So, Dr.

4 Murray?

5 DR. MURRAY: I may jot be formulating in a

6 way that the FDA will find useful but it is the way

7 I am formulating it. I think we have had a good

8 discussion about a number of risks to the offspring

9 and to the woman, to the point where we can say

10 that for most of them, and not all of them and that

11 is a big \"but\" there is reasonable either

12 combination of evidence or evidence sometimes by

13 analogy that they don\'t seem to be outrageous

14 risks.

15 The one piece that remains for me of

16 significant concern is the possible transfer of

17 cellular components, DNA of various forms, etc. I

18 would refer to that as a very poorly characterized

19 risk. We really don\'t know what we are getting.

20 The problem is the stew problem.

21 The way I am formulating it that may not

22 be helpful is I feel like we need to know more

23 about what the active ingredient or ingredients are

24 in this stew because at this point we may be

25 exposing offspring to risks that are utterly

344

1 unrelated to the therapeutic component of the

2 ooplasm transfer. It is longer than I meant it to

3 be.

4 DR. SIEGEL: And that is pertinent because

5 risks that are unrelated to a therapeutic are

6 probably less reasonable from the perspective of

7 our regulatory authority than risks that have to be

8 accepted in order to have a chance of achieving the

9 benefit.

10 DR. MURRAY: And we just don\'t know.

11 DR. SIEGEL: No, definitely from

12 contaminants of active ingredients in terms of

13 whether they need to be removed, and if you don\'t

14 know which is which you are at a disadvantage.

15 DR. SCHON: I would like to raise

16 something to be sure that we don\'t lose sight of at

17 least one part of this picture. My lab and a lot

18 of the labs of my colleagues work on mitochondrial

19 diseases because there are women who have children

20 who are destined to die, and some of them die very,

21 very early, and we work on treatment of various

22 kinds. I hope one of these days one of those

23 treatments will be debated in front of you guys.

24 But until that happens the risk to benefit for

25 helping such a woman and using a procedure like OT

345

1 is enormous. In the case of a woman who carries a

2 pathogenic mutation we actually know what the

3 beneficial principle is. It happens to be good

4 mitochondria, which is a slightly different way of

5 looking at it but, no matter how the FDA rules or

6 whatever you suggest, I would like you to take into

7 account the enormous benefit that might accrue to

8 those people who really have cytoplasmic transfer,

9 if you will, would really help even knowing that

10 there are these problems of potential chromosomal

11 transfer, and so forth.

12 DR. MOOS: You are proposing that perhaps

13 pursuing an indication where the rationale is

14 sufficiently strong that we are not on the knife\'s

15 edge anymore, but the balance is tipped strongly

16 gives us an entree into a human trial that can

17 examine in some kind of a safety series these

18 questions, and then that can be extended to future

19 trials in infertility.

20 DR. SCHON: As the other Eric pointed out,

21 there are other ways to help these women that do

22 not necessarily require OT but I don\'t want to

23 eliminate it as a possibility, and some of these

24 other issues might piggyback on that.

25 DR. SALOMON: Drs. Rao, Mulligan and then

346

1 Casper.

2 DR. RAO: I have one clarification I need

3 about the question. When you say to support

4 further clinical investigations, this is distinct

5 from clinical research. Does clinical

6 investigation mean you are thinking about

7 pregnancies in follow-up and clinical research

8 means you are using human blastocysts and looking

9 at those, or is there no distinction?

10 DR. SIEGEL: I am not sure we intended a

11 specific distinction, but in this question what we

12 are asking is are there enough data to do clinical

13 research that would involve pregnancies? I am not

14 sure we have consistently made a distinction in the

15 use of those terms but I will tell you that in the

16 context of this, we have IND proposals to do those

17 studies but we have said they can only be done

18 under IND and we are seeking advice as to whether

19 there is more that needs to be done either in terms

20 of human egg research that doesn\'t lead to

21 pregnancies or in animal models prior to doing

22 that, or whether in fact there are sufficient data

23 to make a judgment that those studies with

24 pregnancies can proceed.

25 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Mulligan and then Dr.

347

1 Casper.

2 DR. MULLIGAN: I was just going to propose

3 that we will never come to consensus on any animal

4 experiment to find the active ingredient because we

5 are not even at the point really of finding the

6 active ingredient. We are at the point of whether

7 or not there is anything to this. I mean, we are

8 all talking about finding the thing, and I don\'t

9 think we would ever agree, this group would ever

10 agree on anything that would be compelling, that

11 would definitively document that it is mitochondria

12 that is important or that some other thing is

13 important. So, I would opt just to see if we could

14 get a consensus that that is not an appropriate

15 avenue to pursue\--well, it is an appropriate avenue

16 to pursue but it is not something that should limit

17 this going ahead and, rather, focus on what

18 preclinical things do we think really would have to

19 be accomplished before we would want to see the

20 clinical work go back.

21 DR. SALOMON: So, the question, Richard,

22 that you are getting is, that I want to get to here

23 before it gets too late, is it seems to me, and

24 correct me if my thinking is not straight, that

25 there is this fork in the road and we are not

348

1 getting past this fork in the road. Depending

2 where we go on this fork, it seems to me at least,

3 is telling us everything that we have to discuss

4 then.

5 So, the first fork is there is not

6 sufficient data. The trial designs weren\'t good;

7 there weren\'t enough patients, whatever, in the

8 human studies to say anything definitive. I think

9 we have all agreed on that.

10 Now the question is do we think that we

11 should go ahead and do a study in humans, going all

12 the way to pregnancy, using this field\'s sense of

13 which are appropriate patients. Or, do we say, no,

14 there are too many unknowns. We are not going down

15 that fork and then we really have to define the bar

16 for preclinical studies. Right? Because they are

17 going to want it and they deserve that. We have to

18 go down one fork or the other, or we ought to agree

19 that we can\'t agree and we are stuck. That is okay

20 too, I guess.

21 DR. MULLIGAN: I am saying we could say

22 there is a limited number of things that could be

23 tested that would impact upon the most easily

24 assessable risk.

25 DR. SALOMON: So, are you saying that we

349

1 shouldn\'t do any human clinical trials until we do

2 that?

3 DR. MULLIGAN: Yes, but what I am saying

4 that might be is to have people look at the

5 contaminated nuclear DNA content or\--

6 DR. SALOMON: That is what I am saying, if

7 we take that fork, then we can set the bar.

8 DR. MULLIGAN: I think that we ought to

9 have a consensus on this issue of is there

10 sufficient rationale, and I agree that this

11 probably meets that criteria, that there is some

12 rationale for this and no data.

13 DR. SALOMON: That is exactly what I

14 trying to get that. Dr. Casper?

15 DR. CASPER: I hope I can express this

16 properly, but I think one logical thing that

17 follows from Dr. Schon\'s comments that there could

18 be a huge upside from treating mitochondrial

19 diseases is why not think about mitochondrial

20 transfer, not ooplasm transfer but mitochondrial

21 transfer? That avoids the nuclear DNA issue and

22 you are looking at one specific component. So, if

23 it works, that would help you to determine whether

24 or not that is the right ingredient. If it doesn\'t

25 work, then you can look at other components of the

350

1 cytoplasm but you still might have some information

2 that may help people with mitochondrial problems is

3 because what you are really looking for is a good

4 source of mitochondria for them.

5 DR. SALOMON: I was thinking about that

6 but it doesn\'t really address this fork in the road

7 issue, the reason being that a woman with

8 mitochondrial disease may be a candidate for

9 mitochondrial transfer\--these guys could go in that

10 direction and maybe they have heard that today and

11 will do that. It might actually be a wonderful

12 thing to be doing, but it won\'t address this issue

13 because the idea of finding someone with

14 mitochondrial disease is also an infertile couple

15 that would benefit from this.

16 DR. CASPER: I wasn\'t suggesting that we

17 go right to healing mitochondrial disease, I was

18 thinking that if you had somebody with fragmented

19 embryos and you do mitochondrial transfer, either

20 it will work or won\'t work. If it works, then

21 first of all, you have found the active ingredient

22 for ooplasm transfer, and also you have the upside

23 on mitochondrial disease. If it doesn\'t work, then

24 you have to look in another direction but you may

25 still have some information that will help you in

351

1 terms of treating mitochondrial disease.

2 DR. SALOMON: I am sorry, I misunderstood

3 you. So, your idea is take the fork in the road

4 that takes you to doing some limited clinical

5 trials now and do it with mitochondria. You went

6 another step, and I don\'t want to go there yet,

7 about what the clinical trial design should be.

8 DR. MOOS: With respect to the one issue

9 that I think many agree is significant, the DNA

10 transfer, mention was made of analyzing the donor

11 egg after transfer for cytogenetics and that this

12 was very insensitive. Is there any input that we

13 can get about how we can satisfy ourselves, because

14 Lori Knowles certainly made plain it was important

15 that we are not doing that, using animal model to

16 validate our assay for appropriate sensitivity.

17 You know 10-5 of the human genome is still how many

18 base pairs?

19 DR. SALOMON: I don\'t know anymore.

20 DR. MURRAY: You could do something like Y

21 chromosome, some sort of PCR, to look for whether

22 or not any inoculum that you are going to inject

23 has Y chromosome positively.

24 DR. SALOMON: You could do genotyping on

25 the transfer and look for genotypes that would be

352

1 unique to the donor. You could take the ooplasm

2 and instead of injecting it in an egg just do

3 genotyping on that to see if there is chromosomal

4 DNA that was detectable. You would actually do

5 then just DNA PCR.

6 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I just want to make a

7 couple of comments on what Dr. Casper said. One is

8 there is no evidence at all that women who carry

9 mitochondrial DNA mutations have a fertility

10 problem that is different than in the general

11 population.

12 DR. SALOMON: That is where I was heading

13 before.

14 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: Yes. The other thing is

15 that I think what you said sort of presupposes that

16 there is a magic bullet here, that all women have

17 the same problem and that by doing one set of

18 experiments you are going to identify it and I

19 would be pretty surprised if that were true.

20 DR. SALOMON: We have kind of danced up to

21 this fork in the road a couple of different times.

22 A couple of people have walked down it a little bit

23 but it is not like we have rushed down it. Are

24 there some comments from the community? Are you

25 guys satisfied? You have heard our discussion.

353

1 You have participated.

2 DR. WILLADSEN: Well, it is not for us to

3 be satisfied or dissatisfied at this point. We are

4 happy to be here, I guess. But I should say\--

5 DR. SALOMON: No, it is for you to be

6 satisfied.

7 DR. WILLADSEN: No, the committee is doing

8 its work. One speaker was saying that this type of

9 procedure would not be permitted in Britain, but it

10 is actually interesting that in Britain they left

11 an opening for oocytoplasm transfer in the

12 legislation, I guess on scientific advice. Now, we

13 know those people have been wrong before in the

14 decisions that the government makes there but,

15 nevertheless, they have been thinking about that

16 and this particular procedure has been kept open.

17 One of the reasons why we have tried to

18 minimize the intervention is that obviously at a

19 certain point if you transfer too much cytoplasm it

20 is no longer a cytoplasm transfer, it becomes a

21 nuclear transfer and nuclear transfer, as we know,

22 has some big problems that are special to itself.

23 Finally, on the technical side, I think

24 that the chances of getting little bits of DNA,

25 nuclear DNA transfer with this procedure are

354

1 virtually non-existent because the chromosomes are

2 aligned in one bundle. You would have to transfer

3 a whole chromosome virtually. I think it would be

4 impossible to tear off a bit of DNA from a

5 chromosome. I am not saying it couldn\'t happen but

6 I don\'t think that is a major concern.

7 Also, what one can do is to check, as we

8 have done, that the donor chromosomes are actually

9 in the remains of the egg. That is not a

10 particularly difficult thing to do. But the

11 concern is not nearly as grave as we may have been

12 led to believe.

13 I should also say that the possibility

14 that the mitochondrial DNA that is being

15 transferred might somehow interact unfavorably, be

16 it ever so rarely, with the nuclear genome, well

17 the sperm provides disintegrating mitochondria

18 every time you have fertilization in the human.

19 Thank you.

20 MS. KNOWLES: Can I just clarify the

21 situation in the U.K.? I just want to be clear

22 that they have left open the possibility for

23 mitochondrial disease. The discussion is in the

24 context of mitochondrial disease. In addition,

25 they are not allowing clinical trials. They are

355

1 quite expressly not allowing clinical trials until

2 there is more animal and preclinical work.

3 DR. WILLADSEN: I don\'t disagree about the

4 purpose of it, but you have to understand that the

5 technique whereby they are going to do it is going

6 to have to be this one or not at all.

7 DR. SALOMON: Anyone else? Dr. Cohen, at

8 this point you have participated in this

9 discussion\--I don\'t think Dr. Lanzendorf is

10 here\--and Dr. Grifo, do you think that you should

11 go forward with a limited clinical trial right now?

12 DR. COHEN: I think we should consider it.

13 We did a pilot experiment that has been a five-year

14 long pilot experiment. The clinical demand is

15 enormous. There are many patients who have this

16 particular profile have become successful. We

17 didn\'t do a randomized study but these patients

18 were at the end of their rope and considered egg

19 donation or nothing. And, there are other groups

20 of patients that are similarly interesting. There

21 is, for instance, one group of patients that has

22 recurrent implantation failure but has apparently

23 normal looking embryos and they still don\'t become

24 pregnant again, again and again. So, this is just

25 one small part of the population but the population

356

1 is larger. I think I said in my presentation there

2 is a whole slew of techniques that are waiting at

3 the sideline that has just studied in animal models

4 that has tremendous potential. There are ways of

5 doing egg freezing using cytoplasmic transfer. I

6 won\'t go into details. It is not just

7 mitochondrial disease treatment that is a

8 potential. There are ways of duplicating sperm

9 genomes so that you can do a genetic test on one

10 duplication and use the other one, once you have

11 tested it, for fertilization. All these

12 technologies, aneuploidy correction, aneuploidy

13 avoidance, all these technologies at this point in

14 time involve, in one way or another, some

15 cytoplasmic transfer.

16 So, this is a very important decision we

17 are taking, and the biggest concern we have had,

18 and I think you are sharing this, is the safety

19 concern. These are the biggest concerns. The

20 rationale, you can only find out when you do the

21 clinical work, when you do the trials. You can\'t

22 base it on animal models. And, the safety concerns

23 have been highlighted appropriately today. I get a

24 lot of questions when I give presentations about

25 cytoplasm transfer, but the concern of little

357

1 pieces of DNA being slashed off chromosomes that

2 are now being transferred is a concern I haven\'t

3 heard about in the six, seven years of my

4 presentations. So, I must say I am not well

5 prepared. It is an original concern. The concerns

6 about the incidence of aneuploidy or the issue of

7 heteroplasmy I think were well highlighted today.

8 DR. SALOMON: As I said at the beginning

9 of the day, our purpose is to make sure that we

10 have adequately presented the whole discussion, and

11 when we get to the end of today, that is what I

12 hope people feel we have done.

13 How about a few minutes on what would be

14 an appropriate clinical trial? Similarly, what

15 would be the key animal experiments to do to bring

16 the whole group forward to the point where we would

17 all naturally go down the curve in the road that

18 says a clinical trial?

19 DR. SIEGEL: Before we move on to that,

20 and I know we don\'t want to be here all night but

21 given that we are going to have to make some

22 difficult decisions, often when there is a

23 consensus of the committee you try to sum up. I

24 haven\'t heard you do that on this question.

25 Because you started asking the question differently

358

1 from the way it is posed, I am not sure I have an

2 appreciation of the consensus. If we move on, I

3 assume the best advice is that we are just supposed

4 to kind of put it all together, but I wonder if it

5 might be helpful\--

6 DR. SALOMON: Well, I put it one way and

7 tried to get at it, and then I put it the other way

8 with your help, and I don\'t know that we got at it.

9 DR. SIEGEL: It might be useful to poll

10 the committee members as to whether they think

11 before doing trials in human during pregnancy there

12 is additional animal work to be done. If so, what?

13 That is sort of question number four and I think

14 Dr. Mulligan pointed out correctly that it is hard

15 to ask one question without the other because, in

16 fact, if there is no useful animal work, even if

17 you would like to have more data from animals if

18 there is nothing that is going to be relevant\--

19 DR. SALOMON: Let me just try to get a

20 consensus here, what I have heard from everyone is

21 that this is the fork in the road. That probably

22 based on everything we have heard, most of us would

23 probably be okay with a well-designed, very limited

24 clinical trial going forward, but we haven\'t talked

25 enough about what a well-designed clinical trial

359

1 would be. The rest of us would be much happier if

2 they would put themselves on hold and do the animal

3 work and come back in, you know, six months to a

4 year and reassure us on some of what we have

5 articulated as safety issues. But I think we can

6 certainly poll the committee on that, but that is

7 my thinking. Let\'s go around. Dr. Casper?

8 MS. CASPER: I am not sure I am ready to

9 decide yet. I think it would be nice to do some

10 animal work. I am just not sure there is an

11 appropriate model available.

12 MS. KNOWLES: I think you probably know

13 what I am going to say. I think we should be doing

14 some animal work and some human embryo work before

15 a clinical trial.

16 DR. NAVIAUX: From what we have heard,

17 there doesn\'t seem to be a defect in an animal

18 model to try to correct so we would never be able

19 to get an inactive principle in animal studies,

20 which is justification for well-designed basic work

21 in human studies.

22 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I think we should be

23 doing all of the above because I don\'t think there

24 is a right or wrong answer here. As Dr. Mulligan

25 said, no one will agree on an animal model. We

360

1 don\'t know what the principles are, and the only

2 way to move a little inch forward is to do some

3 limited, really good trial in humans I think.

4 DR. VAN BLERKOM: I would agree also with

5 that. I think the trial should be designed to

6 address the fundamental issue of what defect is

7 being addressed. So, if you are transferring this

8 stew or soup, the point is what are you really

9 addressing? What is the defect? I think if you

10 couple the cytoplasmic transfer with the notion of

11 trying to identify defects, whether it is

12 mitochondrial fragmentation of whatever, I mean, I

13 think that is what is important and I think you

14 could design it in that way so you can get a handle

15 on the problem, if there is one. It is a unique

16 situation because you are not quite sure what is

17 wrong and you are not quite sure if you are fixing

18 it.

19 DR. MURRAY: I am actually very close to

20 Jonathan Van Blerkom on this. We have questions

21 five and six, what defects are being addressed, and

22 I agree, we don\'t know. And number six, do

23 existing clinical data from humans support a

24 rationale? The as is no. So, I would be unwilling

25 to favor any trial in humans that did not have as a

361

1 main focus to identify what it is that is actually

2 being addressed by this therapy. In fact, I am in

3 no position to challenge the basic scientists here

4 but it seems to me one could do useful studies,

5 both in animals and in human embryos. Just trot

6 out a few hypotheses, it is the mitochondria. What

7 evidence would we have the mitochondria are working

8 through the mechanism of increased ATP, or calcium

9 ion transport? What sort of surrogate endpoints

10 could we study in either humans or animals to see

11 if, in fact, what in the cytoplasm transfer had

12 these effects? So, I think actually one could have

13 a number of hypotheses, generate a number of

14 interesting research questions. You know, it

15 wouldn\'t give you the final answer but it would

16 indicate whether the mechanisms we postulated are

17 plausible or not, and I would like to see that

18 happening preferably before we do it in humans, but

19 I wouldn\'t go to the mat and say that we shouldn\'t

20 do a human trial to elaborate those questions.

21 DR. RAO: I looked through the risks with

22 the procedure that is there and I tried to see if

23 there was any real animal model in which one could

24 test this, and it is very clear that if you think

25 there are going to be late pregnancy problems or

362

1 childhood defects of chromosomal abnormalities,

2 there is no real clear-cut animal model which would

3 be appropriate. The best animal models are for

4 mitochondrial defects. For those, I think it is

5 worthwhile doing experiments in animal models.

6 But, on the other hand, there seemed to be a

7 consensus that while there might be a finite

8 unknowable risk in terms of heteroplasmy, it is not

9 clear that we should be stopping all experiments

10 because of that data.

11 So, what one is left with then is to day,

12 yes, you have to do this experiment. We need to

13 get more information, and that information can only

14 come from human testing. So, it seems that the

15 choice was between doing human clinical work and

16 doing human clinical investigations, and it seems

17 that both would be necessary and it is not clear to

18 me that one can do them one after the other or

19 whether one should do them in parallel.

20 DR. MULLIGAN: I think I concur with that

21 point of view. I would want to see first just

22 better characterization of whatever is being

23 injected, not only the DNA thing but just

24 characterize the consistency, if possible, of DNA

25 content or something like that. Then, I like the

363

1 mouse model. I was intrigued by the mouse model

2 and I would encourage people to look at that in

3 more detail. You know, with the history of all the

4 mouse knockouts, if you look hard enough you may

5 well find something. So, that is really worth

6 looking at. But I wouldn\'t say that you need that

7 information to go ahead.

8 Scientifically, I think if you could get

9 the people who are going to do the clinical trial

10 to actually perhaps look at\--I don\'t know if this

11 is technically possible\--ooplasm without

12 mitochondria, or highly decreased in it by

13 depending on where you poke, or whatever, versus

14 things that are high, it seems to me like that

15 would be interesting too.

16 DR. SALOMON: I try to be practical about

17 it. So, I see two sides to this coin. On one

18 side, I see some of the most competent clinical

19 investigators out there. This is a field that has

20 moved forward through doing this kind of clinical

21 research up until now. In general, I think

22 everyone respects the fact that it has been done

23 well and done ethically. There really are very few

24 smoking guns in this field. So, I think that the

25 first part of the coin is that I respect that, and

364

1 that gives me some sense that a clinical trial

2 could be done, managed properly under FDA

3 guidelines, that would be well designed enough to

4 address the questions, and that would be a step in

5 the direction of the clinical trial.

6 The other part of me sees the other side

7 of the coin, and that is the reality that I am

8 looking out on a group that are some of the best

9 clinical investigators in the country, and the fact

10 is that I work in mice and I work in non-human

11 primates as well as humans and I think the truth is

12 that when I look at my mouse breeders, at a certain

13 point they start dropping off and I find that very

14 reasonable to document, and I am not at all

15 convinced sitting here that you couldn\'t find

16 quickly a mouse model of older, less functioning

17 breeder pairs and it wouldn\'t be that difficult,

18 and you would have your mouse model.

19 Similarly, I work at UC Davis primate

20 center where they have 3000 rhesus and over 1500

21 cinos, all of which have got very detailed breeding

22 records and, again, I am not certain that you

23 couldn\'t find\--I don\'t think this community is

24 really set to look in those directions and that is

25 the other side of the coin.

365

1 So with that said, I think that I agree

2 with my colleagues. At this point the people in

3 this field are willing to do these clinical trials

4 and the mothers and fathers that are coming to them

5 are clearly willing, under the right umbrella of

6 consent and well-done trials, to participate in it.

7 So, you know, I think that is an argument for

8 taking that path. But I hope I have put it in some

9 perspective.

10 I certainly think that we have to do

11 things to insist that animal model work and safety

12 issues\--I want to look at messenger RNA transcripts

13 too and how this is affecting the RNA

14 transcriptosome with the oocyte, and I think it is

15 pretty ridiculous how little data there is to

16 support any of this and that worries me because it

17 is kind of a slippery slope that I go through every

18 time, you know, whether it is xenotransplantation

19 and, \"oh come on, leave us alone; we are just going

20 to do a little gene therapy\", or \"you don\'t know

21 what you are doing; we can just throw some genes

22 in.\" So, I am just saying I think as an overriding

23 principle if we are eventually going to go down

24 this clinical path, I hope that there is a

25 consensus that there is a real underpinning of

366

1 science.

2 DR. VAN BLERKOM: Just to make a point, I

3 am not aware of mice having menopause or

4 perimenppausal conditions.

5 DR. SALOMON: In our breeding colony, and

6 we now maintain several different strains which we

7 have maintained for generations, there is no doubt

8 that not only are there better and worse breeding

9 pairs and we cull these out because we are always

10 selecting for good breeding pairs, but also after

11 some certain number of generations the number of

12 pups they have per delivery will decrease, and it

13 is very easy to document. So, I am just suggesting

14 that that might be when you step in and do the

15 ooplasm transfer from a young mother.

16 MS. WOLFSON: I am not convinced that

17 there are animal studies that need to be done

18 before we go into human pregnancies. I am not a

19 scientist so I can\'t really go into those, but the

20 paucity of that information frightens me when we

21 look at such a huge outcome.

22 DR. SALOMON: So, clinical studies or

23 animal studies?

24 MS. WOLFSON: Animal and human embryo if

25 possible.

367

1 MS. SERABIAN: I guess one thing I am

2 concerned with as a toxicologist is what I call

3 worst case scenario. I mean, here we have the best

4 of the best basically that are performing these

5 studies in humans, and when it gets to expanded

6 other sites, again, I am thinking worst case, you

7 know, just going a little too far, etc., that is

8 the kind of thing we would want to look at in

9 animals, assume a worst case scenario maybe not for

10 this initial phase that we are talking about but,

11 for sure, as it expands.

12 DR. SALOMON: At a minimum also, if they

13 do a clinical trial that they should do it with

14 very specific outcome parameters for the different

15 steps, many of which have been discussed.

16 MS. SERABIAN: Right. Then, one other

17 comment with respect to the animal studies, it

18 sounds like there is a wealth of data that has been

19 published, maybe a bit of it not published. It

20 would be kind of an interesting idea if there are

21 certain organizations or groups to somehow put this

22 in a document, master files, a certain way to

23 submit to FDA that everyone could refer to in terms

24 of the animal data.

25 DR. MURRAY: There is one more complexity

368

1 that has come up sporadically here but that we need

2 to bear in mind is that I realize that, number one,

3 this isn\'t the kind of thing people had in mind

4 when they wrote about inheritable genetic

5 modifications but this is plausibly, it will be at

6 least in some children if they have offspring, if

7 they are females if they have offspring, in a

8 stochastic fashion some of the transplanted

9 mitochondrial DNA does in fact end up in eggs that

10 become fertilized and have children later, and I

11 don\'t know what to do with that but I think it

12 would be a mistake to simply forget that that is on

13 the table.

14 DR. SALOMON: Dr. Schon, I realize that

15 you were out of the room. What we did was go

16 around and just basically gave some final thoughts

17 about which fork in the road would you be

18 comfortable taking, to clinical trials or no

19 clinical trials, animal or go down both in a

20 parallel way?

21 DR. SCHON: I have to think about this.

22 Maybe the one comment I would like to make is that

23 it seemed to me that there was\--is everybody like

24 me? You don\'t answer the question, you sort of

25 make up your own question and answer that one?

369

1 DR. SALOMON: There have been eight

2 variations of that so far.

3 DR. SCHON: I have detected sort of a

4 merging of two issues, which are the safety and the

5 efficacy, and I will answer the question. Safety

6 means you have a level of performance which suffers

7 no diminution when you do something. So you are

8 here and you go down. Efficacy is the reverse.

9 You are here and you want to go up. One of the

10 confusions is that when we discuss the analogy to

11 mitochondrial diseases the bar is actually down

12 here because kids are in bad shape, the eggs are in

13 bad shape genetically; they are actually not in

14 such bad shape physiologically. Now, anything you

15 do brings you up. So, to answer the question, for

16 issues of safety clearly I think animal models are

17 the way to go. I mean, the question answers

18 itself. For issues of efficacy what I am hearing,

19 and I am no expert, is that animal models are not

20 the way to go because it is so hard to do. So,

21 some kind of clinical trial for efficacy that

22 followed a preliminary question on safety\--you can

23 ask these things about DNA fragments and so forth,

24 although you may not be able to answer questions

25 about aneuploidy, and maybe they can even go on

370

1 almost in parallel if you did some of the questions

2 on human embryos, fertilized human embryos without

3 implantation. I don\'t know of you are allowed to

4 do those kinds of things, but if you were, that is

5 the way I would do it.

6 DR. SALOMON: I think we have certainly

7 answered almost all the questions. I think the one

8 thing, sitting back here, that we didn\'t really get

9 to\--I mean, we have talked about the preclinical

10 models. I don\'t know that there would be a lot

11 more. We have discussed the mouse model, talked

12 about the non-human primate models. I don\'t think

13 that this community has the tools to go into the

14 non-human primate and mouse model, so we would have

15 to interest other investigators around to come into

16 that area, and that is the kind of thing that could

17 be done potentially but those are unknowns.

18 The only thing that I think we just may

19 have fallen a little short of was exactly what

20 would be the clinical trial. That is not a minor

21 gap. I am sure I will be reminded of this year and

22 years from now about how I failed the FDA on this

23 one. But we have talked a lot about the aspects of

24 what the clinical trial ought to be. I am going to

25 try and get some consensus on that in a minute or

371

1 two. One thing I think we are all convinced of,

2 again correct me if I am wrong but I think we are

3 all convinced that there is a population of couples

4 who are not implanting and are not being able to

5 have successful pregnancies. I am not saying that

6 we all agree that there is one problem for all

7 those women, and there may not be, but there is

8 definitely an identifiable population that is the

9 target of this.

10 I think Dr. Cohen made the very good point

11 that there are a number of other variations that

12 are behind this that are relevant. So, the

13 population is outcome there. I think population

14 choice\--I think these guys have that pretty well

15 nailed down. I don\'t think they have been picking

16 the wrong women to do it in.

17 We want to know efficacy. We have talked

18 about what the safety issues are. So, whatever

19 that clinical trial design is that you do, it has

20 to give us safety and it has to give us some

21 insight into the nature of the product, what is in

22 that ooplasm\--DNA fragments, RNA transcripts? How

23 many mitochondria are in there? Does mitochondria

24 have anything to do with this? What kind of

25 measures would give you mitochondrial function? We

372

1 heard ATP and then we heard, come on, there are 50

2 other things that mitochondria can do; get a grip.

3 We heard about apoptosis testing, all of which is

4 commercially available, etc. So, I think that is

5 the kind of thing that would come relatively easy

6 is you sat down and said what are the aspects of a

7 clinical trial.

8 Actually, I have just talked myself into

9 the fact that we did answer all of the questions

10 and I don\'t want any grief later.

11 \[Laughter\]

12 DR. SIEGEL; Well, I could come back years

13 later or now, I guess\--

14 \[Laughter\]

15 I don\'t want to keep the committee forever

16 and, obviously, there are a lot of unanswered

17 questions and we are not going to answer all of

18 them. One or two that stand out in my mind is that

19 we did hear a comment, I think from Dr. Cohen, that

20 there is no intent for long-term follow-up of these

21 children. I guess it would be useful to know from

22 the committee whether they think that is an

23 acceptable way to move forward, and if we allow

24 trials to be done without long-term follow-up, then

25 in the long term we still won\'t know what the

373

1 long-term effects are.

2 DR. SALOMON: We fought and died over this

3 one in gene therapy in xenotransplantation so I

4 can\'t believe I am back again discussing this

5 problem. Fro Dr. Cohen\'s sake, xenotransplantation

6 now is follow-up forever, and we are really not

7 interested in whether the investigators want to do

8 that or not. That is what has been said. In gene

9 transfer studies it is a movable target depending

10 on some of the issues of an integrating vector,

11 non-integrating vector etc., but it is as long as

12 15 years in some vector classes. But the good news

13 is that in these trials, just to give you the

14 background here so you guys don\'t faint, a lot of

15 the long-term follow-up came down to sending a

16 postcard once a year kind of thing: \"are you

17 alive?\" That sort of thing. So, you guys might

18 ask \"are you alive? Do you have mitochondrial

19 defect.\"

20 DR. SABLE: Just to give an idea how

21 seriously we do take it, we had one of our

22 investigators in the delivery room, breach

23 delivery, and the investigator has gone to the

24 pediatrician\'s appointments. So, we don\'t mean to

25 imply that we are not serious about follow-up, I

374

1 think it is just a matter of degree.

2 DR. SALOMON: With that background, I also

3 wanted to educate those of you who are not privy to

4 these other long discussions at multiple BRMAC

5 meetings of long-term follow-up. What do you guys

6 think? Again, we can just get some quick opinions.

7 Why don\'t we just go around? Dr. Casper, long-term

8 follow-up?

9 DR. CASPER: Yes, I think it is

10 reasonable.

11 MS. KNOWLES: Yes, I think obviously there

12 should be a very rich informed consent procedure

13 about what long-term follow-up would look like up,

14 particularly when we are talking about inheritable

15 genetic modifications, how long that might have to

16 be.

17 DR. NAVIAUX: Yes, I think long-term

18 follow-up is going to be required, and there should

19 be a default pathway. After doing the routine

20 monitoring, if anything abnormal comes out in

21 development, if there is abnormal growth of the

22 child or abnormal cognitive development, then there

23 should be an intensified examination to look for

24 why.

25 DR. SHOUBRIDGE: I think so too. If you

375

1 could demonstrate that you haven\'t actually

2 transferred DNA, then that would, of course, change

3 how long might want to follow-up.

4 DR. SALOMON: I just want to add that that

5 is one of the concepts that came out very clearly

6 in the gene transfer experiments as well.

7 DR. SCHON: I don\'t think I am competent

8 to answer the question. It seems to me that

9 whoever designs the clinical trial, it is incumbent

10 on them to figure out what the nature of the

11 follow-up is. I can\'t do it.

12 DR. VAN BLERKOM: It would be nice to have

13 long-term trials, but I just would put in a caveat

14 that in this field, in IVF in particular,

15 compliance is an issue because, believe it or not,

16 patients disappear, regardless of what they signed

17 in their informed consent, they leave their embryos

18 in storage behind. So, it is a complicated issue

19 to get the type of follow-up. Yes, you can put it

20 there in writing but whether you actually get that

21 on the other end is a different story.

22 DR. SALOMON: I don\'t know that this group

23 is any less likely or more likely to disappear than

24 our gene transfer patients or the patients who

25 eventually will be candidates for

376

1 xenotransplantation. But there certainly is, on

2 the other hand, a precedent for really

3 extraordinarily successful long-term trials and, as

4 a principle, it is quite possible to do, and I

5 don\'t think we should approach it by saying, you

6 know, all these patients disappear; there is no way

7 to do it.

8 DR. VAN BLERKOM: It is not what I meant,

9 but it may be a different category because it may

10 not be perceived on the part of the couples that

11 this is a pressing issue.

12 DR. SALOMON: They won\'t be able to put it

13 on the income tax return either.

14 DR. MURRAY: No, but we can use the

15 internet. Years later it is eerily possible to

16 find you or anybody else if you know how to look

17 and you are determined. So, I would say, yes,

18 there should be long-term follow-up. It should not

19 be onerous on either the investigators or the

20 families, but reasonable thought needs to be given

21 to what would be an effective program of long-term

22 follow-up and I think that is all one can

23 reasonably ask of either party.

24 DR. RAO: I can only second that. I just

25 wanted to add one more thing. There were some

377

1 issues raised by Dr. Lanzendorf about selection

2 criteria and controls, and I think those are going

3 to be important issues. Given that we don\'t think

4 there is a great amount of data on actual benefit

5 or efficacy, that means you have to select your

6 patient criteria for any kind of trial and you have

7 to really define it very carefully, along with

8 appropriate controls. That is going to be

9 something that needs to be factored in.

10 DR. MULLIGAN: Yes, and with your point, I

11 think the consent form\--I don\'t know if we are

12 going to get to that but I think it really ought to

13 deal with this issue of the data that does exist.

14 I am interested in whether or not patients and

15 families would actually find anything interesting

16 about the issue that I think you raised about the

17 evolutionary uncertainty. I think there ought to

18 be something about the evolutionary things that

19 could occur.

20 DR. SALOMON: I certainly agree with

21 long-term follow-up. As I said, I have been chased

22 around and around on that already and I just accept

23 it as being a part of the responsibility I think we

24 have. I don\'t mean to be facetious about it. I

25 think that in the end the arguments for long-term

378

1 follow-up, when done in a way that is not onerous

2 on the patients, don\'t provide stigma, that carry

3 then anywhere from school to insurance etc., if it

4 is done right I think long-term follow-up is

5 important to the community at large for these sort

6 of cutting edge gene transfer experiments.

7 In terms of a clinical trial, the only

8 other thing that I would add to the picture is if

9 we go ahead with a clinical trial in this area, I

10 really hope that when you say, for example, that

11 here is a patient with repeated failures to

12 implantation and then we did the oocyte transfer

13 and we got such and such a result, that those

14 patients are really much better controlled than the

15 data we have seen so far. I want to make sure that

16 it is all done at your center under optimal

17 conditions and then at your center you do it.

18 I was also very concerned that 9 of your

19 28 patients in your study, Dr. Cohen, were patients

20 who supposedly had male infertility problems. I

21 wouldn\'t understand why you were doing oocyte

22 transfer. Now, I may have misunderstood that

23 slide, but that is an example of something I hope

24 you will design out of a clinical trial.

25 DR. COHEN: Thank you for mentioning that.

379

1 It is a very good point. This was discovered after

2 the fact.

3 eggs were treated with ooplasmic donation and the

4 remaining eggs from the donor oocytes were injected

5 with the husband\'s sperm. So, it is like a control

6 with the purpose of freezing those embryos for

7 years clinically later. But what we found is that

8 in nine cases the embryos of those controls

9 developed as badly as the embryos of the patient,

10 and I think that is what I was trying to say. So,

11 it is sort of after the fact. Looking at it

12 closer, some of these were borderline male factors

13 and we could have probably figured it out before

14 but that is a very grey area.

15 DR. SALOMON: Again, that would be

16 something that you presumably could exclude on the

17 way to deciding this is a repeat implantation

18 failure and won\'t benefit from ICSI.

19 DR. COHEN: Yes, you can do that but then

20 you have to do a really big experiment, which is

21 get an egg donor and test the sperm, yes.

22 MS. WOLFSON: I think there should be

23 long-term follow-up in whatever way is possible,

24 and insofar as there could, in fact, be a DNA

25 transfer that is involved, I think the follow-up

380

1 should go into the second generation.

2 DR. SALOMON: Anyone else?

3 DR. NOGUCHI: What I do want to say is

4 that I think this has been an extraordinarily open

5 and frank meeting, and is exactly the kind of

6 discussion and interplay back and forth with the

7 community, the practitioners and our colleagues to

8 really obtain advice that we need, because these

9 are the questions that my colleagues face daily and

10 actually are going to have to do the reviews, and

11 this has been just an invaluable experience. So, I

12 personally want to thank all of you, all the

13 participants from the public as well. This was

14 great. Thank you very much.

15 DR. MOOS: One quick extension on a

16 comment Mercedes made a bit ago, it seems as though

17 there are a couple of issues that could be

18 addressed in preclinical models, like validation of

19 DNA and so forth, that could be done once

20 definitively in a sort of platform mode and people

21 in the field could, in fact, work together to

22 present us with some useful approaches to

23 validating this. The quicker that some of these

24 safety issues, which can be addressed in animal

25 models, can be laid to rest, and it sounds like it

381

1 might be fairly easy to do the DNA one for example,

2 the better for all of us. Then we can begin with a

3 kind of staged approach in clinical models that we

4 have all talked about, and we have heard a lot of

5 discussion that it can only be evaluated there.

6 So, think about it and come talk to us.

7 DR. SALOMON: Are there any last comments

8 from anyone that have to be made before we adjourn?

9 If not, I would like to thank everyone who came,

10 both the expert panel, my committee, the FDA staff,

11 particularly staffers like Gail and her group who

12 put all this together, and everybody else. Thank

13 you very much for a successful meeting. That group

14 of you who will be here tomorrow, we will see you

15 tomorrow. Otherwise, everyone travel safely and

16 good health.

17 \[Whereupon, at 6:45 p.m., the proceedings

18 were recessed, to reconvene on Friday, May 10,

19 2002.\]

20 - - -