CAR-T-Cell-Based Cancer Immunotherapies: Potentials, Limitations, and Future Prospects.

Cancer encompasses various elements occurring at the cellular and genetic levels, necessitating an immunotherapy capable of efficiently addressing both aspects. T cells can combat cancer cells by specifically recognizing antigens on them. This innate capability of T cells has been used to develop cellular immunotherapies, but most of them can only target antigens through major histocompatibility complexes (MHCs). New gene-editing techniques such as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-associated protein 9 (CRISPR-cas9) can precisely edit the DNA sequences. CRISPR-cas9 has made it possible to generate genetically engineered chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that can overcome the problems associated with old immunotherapies. In chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy, the patient's T cells are isolated and genetically modified to exhibit synthetic CAR(s). CAR-T cell treatment has shown remarkably positive clinical outcomes in cancers of various types. Nevertheless, there are various challenges that reduce CAR-T effectiveness in solid tumors. It is required to address these challenges in order to make CAR-T cell therapy a better and safer option. Combining CAR-T treatment with other immunotherapies that target multiple antigens has shown positive outcomes. Moreover, recently generated Boolean logic-gated advanced CARs along with artificial intelligence has expanded its potential to treat solid tumors in addition to blood cancers. This review aims to describe the structure, types, and various methods used to develop CAR-T cells. The clinical applications of CAR-T cells in hematological malignancies and solid tumours have been described in detail. In addition, this discussion has addressed the limitations associated with CAR-T cells, explored potential strategies to mitigate CAR-T-related toxicities, and delved into future perspectives.

Prime editing: A potential treatment option for ß-thalassemia.

The potential to therapeutically alter the genome is one of the remarkable scientific developments in recent years. Genome editing technologies have provided an opportunity to precisely alter genomic sequence(s) in eukaryotic cells as a treatment option for various genetic disorders. These technologies allow the correction of harmful mutations in patients by precise nucleotide editing. Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat) and base editors have greatly contributed to the practical applications of gene editing. However, these technologies have certain limitations, including imperfect editing, undesirable mutations, off-target effects, and lack of potential to simultaneously edit multiple loci. Recently, prime editing (PE) has emerged as a new gene editing technology with the potential to overcome the above-mentioned limitations. Interestingly, PE not only has higher specificity but also does not require double-strand breaks. In addition, a minimum possibility of potential off-target mutant sites makes PE a preferred choice for therapeutic gene editing. Furthermore, PE has the potential to introduce insertion and deletions of all 12 single-base mutations at target sequences. Considering its potential, PE has been applied as a treatment option for genetic diseases including hemoglobinopathies. ß-Thalassemia, for example, one of the most significant blood disorders characterized by reduced levels of functional hemoglobin, could potentially be treated using PE. Therapeutic reactivation of the γ-globin gene in adult ß-thalassemia patients through PE technology is considered a promising therapeutic strategy. The current review aims to briefly discuss the genome editing strategies and potential applications of PE for the treatment of ß-thalassemia. In addition, the review will also focus on challenges associated with the use of PE.

Promoter Hypermethylation and Expression Changes of BRCA1 Gene in a Cohort of Sporadic Breast Cancer Cases among Pakistani Population.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine the frequency of BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation and its association with expression changes of BRCA1 and main morphological features in sporadic breast cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review of cases was performed to select those with specific morphological features suggestive of breast cancer. BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation and changes in protein expression were evaluated in 30 cancerous and 30 non-cancerous tissue samples. A tissue microarray containing samples from normal and tumor tissue was prepared and stained for BRCA1 protein expression using a commercially available monoclonal antibody against BRCA1 (Ab-1) clone MS110 (mAb). DNA was extracted using modified protocol of Qiagen minikit. DNA was modified using a Bisulfite conversion kit and BRCA1 hypermethylation was detected using a methylation specific PCR. RESULTS: Promoter hypermethylation was negative in 30 non-cancerous samples with retained BRCA1 protein expression. Methylation was positive in 82.6% (n=19/23) of the sporadic cancer samples that had loss of BRCA1 expression and 50% (n=2/4) of the samples with equivocal protein expression. Methylation was negative in all the sporadic breast cancer samples (n=3/3) with retained protein expression. Chi-square analysis showed significant association of BRCA1 promoter methylation with decreased protein expression (P=0.016) and co-existence of loss of BRCA1 and Her2neu at chromosome 17 (P=0.026) respectively. There was no significant association of BRCA1 methylation with morphological features excluding necrosis (P=0.035). Promoter hypermethylation was found to be most common (68.75%) among Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) females less than 45 years old. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation has significant contribution in sporadic breast carcinogenesis. This was our preliminary study in Pakistan. Further studies aimed to determine the in-depth mechanisms of BRCA1 epigenetics in TNBC. BRCAness enriched phenotype in TNBC might be used as a biomarker for the exploitation of therapeutic and clinical implications.  
.