Miniature lab-grown models of human organs have major advantages over standard animal testing.
But he wasn't the only one to follow this train of thought. In the year since the pandemic began, many researchers have been using organoids to study how the coronavirus infects human cells, and find potential treatments. Beumer's pivot represents a remarkable and fast-emerging paradigm shift in how drugs and diseases will be studied in the coming decades. With future pandemics likely to be more frequent and deadlier, such a shift is necessary to reduce the average clinical development time of 5.9 years for antiviral agents.
Part of that shift means developing models that replicate human biology in the lab. Animal models, which are the current standard in biomedical research, fail to do so—96% of drugs that pass animal testing, for example, fail to make it to market. Injecting potentially toxic drugs into living creatures, before eventually slaughtering them, also raises ethical concerns for some. Organoids, on the other hand, respond to infectious diseases, or potential treatments, in a way that is relevant to humans, in addition to being slaughter-free.
Human intestinal organoids infected with SARS-CoV-2 (white).
Credit: Joep Beumer/Clevers group/Hubrecht Institute
Urgency Sparked Momentum
Though brain organoids were previously used to study the Zika virus during the 2015-16 epidemic, it wasn't until COVID-19 that the field really started to change. "The organoid field has advanced a lot in the last year. The speed at which it happened is crazy," says Shuibing Chen, an associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She adds that many federal and private funding agencies have now seen the benefits of organoids, and are starting to appreciate their potential in the biomedical field.
Last summer, the Organo-Strat (OS) network—a German network that uses human organoid models to study COVID-19's effects—received 3.2 million euros in funding from the German government. "When the pandemic started, we became aware that we didn't have the right models to immediately investigate the effects of the virus," says Andreas Hocke, professor of infectious diseases at the Charité Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, Germany, and coordinator of the OS network. Hocke explained that while the World Health Organization's animal models showed an "overlap of symptoms'' with humans, there was "no clear reflection" of the same disease.
"The network functions as a way of connecting organoid experts with infectious disease experts across Germany," Hocke continues. "Having organoid models on demand means we can understand how a virus infects human cells from the first moment it's isolated." Overall, OS aims to create infrastructure that could be applied to future pandemics. There are 28 sub-projects involved in the network, covering a wide assortment of individual organoids.
Cost, however, remains an obstacle to scaling up, says Chen. She says there is also a limit to what we can learn from organoids, given that they only represent a single organ. "We can add drugs to organoids to see how the cells respond, but these tests don't tell us anything about drug metabolism, for example," she explains.
A Related "Leaps" in Progress
One way to solve this issue is to use an organ-on-a-chip system. These are miniature chips containing a variety of human cells, as well as small channels along which functions like blood or air flow can be recreated. This allows scientists to perform more complex experiments, like studying drug metabolism, while producing results that are relevant to humans.
An organ-on-a-chip system.
Credit: Fraunhofer IGB
Such systems are also able to elicit an immune response. The FDA has even entered into an agreement with Wyss Institute spinoff Emulate to use their lung-on-a-chip system to test COVID-19 vaccines. Representing multiple organs in one system is also possible. Berlin-based TissUse are aiming to make a so-called 'human on a chip' system commercially available. But TissUse senior scientist Ilka Maschmeyer warns that there is a limit to how far the technology can go. "The system will not think or feel, so it wouldn't be possible to test for illnesses affecting these abilities," she says.
Some challenges also remain in the usability of organs-on-a-chip. "Specialized training is required to use them as they are so complex," says Peter Loskill, assistant professor and head of the organ-on-a-chip group at the University of Tübingen, Germany. Hocke agrees with this. "Cell culture scientists would easily understand how to use organoids in a lab, but when using a chip, you need additional biotechnology knowledge," he says.
One major advantage of both technologies is the possibility of personalized medicine: Cells can be taken from a patient and put onto a chip, for example, to test their individual response to a treatment. Loskill also says there are other uses outside of the biomedical field, such as cosmetic and chemical testing.
"Although these technologies offer a lot of possibilities, they need time to develop," Loskill continues. He stresses, however, that it's not just the technology that needs to change. "There's a lot of conservative thinking in biomedical research that says this is how we've always done things. To really study human biology means approaching research questions in a completely new way."
Even so, he thinks that the pandemic marked a shift in people's thinking—no one cared how the results were found, as long as it was done quickly. But Loskill adds that it's important to balance promise, potential, and expectations when it comes to these new models. "Maybe in 15 years' time we will have a limited number of animal models in comparison to now, but the timescale depends on many factors," he says.
Beumer, now a post-doc, was eventually allowed to return to the lab to develop his coronavirus model, and found working on it to be an eye-opening experience. He saw first-hand how his research could have an impact on something that was affecting the entire human race, as well as the pressure that comes with studying potential treatments. Though he doesn't see a future for himself in infectious diseases, he hopes to stick with organoids. "I've now gotten really excited about the prospect of using organoids for drug discovery," he says.
The coronavirus pandemic has slowed society down in many respects, but it has flung biomedical research into the future—from mRNA vaccines to healthcare models based on human biology. It may be difficult to fully eradicate animal models, but over the coming years, organoids and organs-on-a-chip may become the standard for the sake of efficacy -- and ethics.
Entomologist Jessica Ware is using new technologies to identify insect species in a changing climate. She shares her suggestions for how we can live harmoniously with creeper crawlers everywhere.
Listen to the Episode
Listen on Apple | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Stitcher | Listen on Amazon | Listen on Google
Entomologist Jessica Ware
D. Finnin / AMNH
Maybe it feels like a core human instinct to demonize bugs as gross. We seem to try to eradicate them in every way possible, whether that’s with poison, or getting out our blood thirst by stomping them whenever they creep and crawl into sight.
But where did our fear of bugs really come from? Jessica makes a compelling case that a lot of it is cultural, rather than in-born, and we should be following the lead of other cultures that have learned to live with and appreciate bugs.
The truth is that a healthy planet depends on insects. You may feel stung by that news if you hate bugs. Reality bites.
Jessica and I talk about whether learning to live with insects should include eating them and gene editing them so they don’t transmit viruses. She also tells me about her important research into using genomic tools to track bugs in the wild to figure out why and how we’ve lost 50 percent of the insect population since 1970 according to some estimates – bad news because the ecosystems that make up the planet heavily depend on insects. Jessica is leading the way to better understand what’s causing these declines in order to start reversing these trends to save the insects and to save ourselves.
A company called Second Sight made an implant that partially restored vision to people who'd been blind for decades. But when Second Sight pivoted, it stopped servicing its product, leaving many in the dark.
The Argus II uses the implant and a video camera embedded in a special pair of glasses to provide limited vision to those with retinitis pigmentosa, a genetic disease that causes cells in the retina to deteriorate. The camera feeds information to the implant, which sends electrical impulses into the retina to recapitulate what the camera sees. The impulses appear in the Argus II as a 60-pixel grid of blacks, grays and whites in the user’s eye that can render rough outlines of objects and their motion.
Smartphone and computer manufacturers typically stop issuing software upgrades to their devices after two or three years, eventually rendering them bricks. But is the smartphone approach acceptable for a device that helps restore the most crucial sense a human being possesses?
Ross Doerr, a retired disability rights attorney in Maine who received an Argus II in 2019, describes the field of vision as the equivalent of an index card held at arm’s length. Perk often brings objects close to his face to decipher them. Moreover, users must swivel their heads to take in visual data; moving their eyeballs does not work.
Despite its limitations, the Argus II beats the alternative. Perk no longer relies on his guide dog. Doerr was uplifted when he was able to see the outlines of Christmas trees at a holiday show.
“The fairy godmother department sort of reaches out and taps you on the shoulder once in a while,” Doerr says of his implant, which came about purely by chance. A surgeon treating his cataracts was partnered with the son of another surgeon who was implanting the devices, and he was referred.
Doerr had no reason to believe the shower of fairy dust wouldn’t continue. Second Sight held out promises that the Argus II recipients’ vision would gradually improve through upgrades to much higher pixel densities. The ability to recognize individual faces was even touted as a possibility. In the winter of 2020, Doerr was preparing to travel across the U.S. to Second Sight’s headquarters to receive an upgrade. But then COVID-19 descended, and the trip was canceled.
The pandemic also hit Second Sight’s bottom line. Doerr found out about its tribulations only from one of the company’s vision therapists, who told him the entire department was being laid off. Second Sight cut nearly 80% of its workforce in March 2020 and announced it would wind down operations.
Ross Doerr has mostly stopped using his Argus II, the result of combination of fear of losing its assistance from wear and tear and disdain for the company that brought it to market.
Jan Doerr
Second Sight’s implosion left some 350 Argus recipients in the metaphorical dark about what to do if their implants failed. Skeleton staff seem to have rarely responded to queries from their customers, at least based on the experiences of Perk and Doerr. And some recipients have unfortunately returned to the actual dark as well, as reports have surfaced of Argus II failures due to aging or worn-down parts.
Product support for complex products is remarkably uneven. Although the iconic Ford Mustang ceased production in the late 1960s, its parts market is so robust that it’s theoretically possible to assemble a new vehicle from recently crafted components. Conversely, smartphone and computer manufacturers typically stop issuing software upgrades to their devices after two or three years, eventually rendering them bricks. Consumers have accepted both extremes.
But is the smartphone approach acceptable for a device that helps restore the most crucial sense a human being possesses?
Margaret McLean, a senior fellow at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, notes companies like Second Sight have a greater obligation for product support than other consumer product ventures.
“In this particular case, you have a great deal of risk that is involved in using this device, the implant, and the after care of this device,” she says. “You cannot, like with your car, decide that ‘I don’t like my Mustang anymore,’ and go out and buy a Corvette.”
And, whether the Argus II implant works or not, its physical presence can impact critical medical decisions. Doerr’s doctor wanted him to undergo an MRI to assist in diagnosing attacks of vertigo. But the physician was concerned his implant might interfere. With the latest available manufacturer advisories on his implant nearly a decade old, the procedure was held up. Doerr spent months importuning Second Sight through phone calls, emails and Facebook postings to learn if his implant was contraindicated with MRIs, which he never received. Although the cause of his vertigo was found without an MRI, Doerr was hardly assured.
“Put that into context for a minute. I get into a serious car accident. I end up in the emergency room, and I have a tag saying I have an implanted medical device,” he says. “You can’t do an MRI until you get the proper information from the company. Who’s going to answer the phone?”
Second Sight’s management did answer the call to revamp its business. It netted nearly $78 million through a private stock placement and an initial public offering last year. At the end of 2021, Second Sight had nearly $70 million in cash on hand, according to a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
And while the Argus II is still touted at length on Second Sight’s home page, it appears little of its corporate coffers are earmarked toward its support. These days, the company is focused on obtaining federal approvals for Orion, a new implant that would go directly into the recipient’s brain and could be used to remedy blindness from a variety of causes. It obtained a $6.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health in May 2021 to help develop Orion.
Presented with a list of written questions by email, Second Sight’s spokesperson, Dave Gentry of the investor relations firm Red Chip Companies, copied a subordinate with an abrupt message to “please handle.” That was the only response from a company representative. A call to Second Sight acting chief executive officer Scott Dunbar went unreturned.
Whether or not the Orion succeeds remains to be seen. The company’s SEC filings suggest a viable and FDA-approved device is years away, and that operational losses are expected for the “foreseeable future.” Second Sight reported zero revenue in 2020 or 2021.
Moreover, the experiences of the Argus II recipients could color the reception of future Second Sight products. Doerr notes that his insurer paid nearly $500,000 to implant his device and for training on how to use it.
“What’s the insurance industry going to say the next time this crops up?” Doerr asks, noting that the company’s reputation is “completely shot” with the recipients of its implants.
Perk, who made speeches to praise the Argus II and is still featured in a video on the Second Sight website, says he also no longer supports the company.
Jeroen Perk, an investigator for the Dutch customs service, cried for joy after partially regaining his sight, but he no longer trusts Second Sight, the company that provided his implant.
Nanda Perk
Nevertheless, Perk remains highly reliant on the technology. When he dropped an external component of his device in late 2020 and it broke, Perk briefly debated whether to remain blind or find a way to get his Argus II working again. Three months later, he was able to revive it by crowdsourcing parts, primarily from surgeons with spare components or other Argus II recipients who no longer use their devices. Perk now has several spare parts in reserve in case of future breakdowns.
Despite the frantic efforts to retain what little sight he has, Perk has no regrets about having the device implanted. And while he no longer trusts Second Sight, he is looking forward to possibly obtaining more advanced implants from companies in the Netherlands and Australia working on their own products.
Doerr suggests that biotech firms whose implants are distributed globally be bound to some sort of international treaty requiring them to service their products in perpetuity. Such treaties are still applied to the salvage rights for ships that sunk centuries ago, he notes.
“I think that in a global tech economy, that would be a good thing,” says McLean, the fellow at Santa Clara, “but I am not optimistic about it in the near term. Business incentives push toward return on share to stockholders, not to patients and other stakeholders. We likely need to rely on some combination of corporately responsibility…and [international] government regulation. It’s tough—the Paris Climate Accord implementation at a slow walk comes to mind.”
Unlike Perk, Doerr has mostly stopped using his Argus II, the result of combination of fear of losing its assistance from wear and tear and disdain for the company that brought it to market. At 70, Doerr says he does not have the time or energy to hold the company more accountable. And with Second Sight having gone through a considerable corporate reorganization, Doerr believes a lawsuit to compel it to better serve its Argus recipients would be nothing but an extremely costly longshot.
“It’s corporate America at its best,” he observes.