ASU Scholarship Showcase

There is an increasing awareness that health care must move from post-symptomatic treatment to presymptomatic intervention. An ideal system would allow regular inexpensive monitoring of health status using circulating antibodies to report on health fluctuations. Recently, we demonstrated that peptide microarrays can do this through antibody signatures (immunosignatures). Unfortunately, printed microarrays are not scalable. Here we demonstrate a platform based on fabricating microarrays (~10 M peptides per slide, 330,000 peptides per assay) on silicon wafers using equipment common to semiconductor manufacturing. The potential of these microarrays for comprehensive health monitoring is verified through the simultaneous detection and classification of six different infectious diseases and six different cancers. Besides diagnostics, these high-density peptide chips have numerous other applications both in health care and elsewhere.

From cells to societies, several general principles arise again and again that facilitate cooperation and suppress conflict. In this study, I describe three general principles of cooperation and how they operate across systems including human sharing, cooperation in animal and insect societies and the massively large-scale cooperation that occurs in our multicellular bodies. The first principle is that of Walk Away: that cooperation is enhanced when individuals can leave uncooperative partners. The second principle is that resource sharing is often based on the need of the recipient (i.e., need-based transfers) rather than on strict account-keeping. And the last principle is that effective scaling up of cooperation requires increasingly sophisticated and costly cheater suppression mechanisms. By comparing how these principles operate across systems, we can better understand the constraints on cooperation. This can facilitate the discovery of novel ways to enhance cooperation and suppress cheating in its many forms, from social exploitation to cancer.

One of the gravest dangers facing cancer patients is an extended symptom-free lull between tumor initiation and the first diagnosis. Detection of tumors is critical for effective intervention. Using the body’s immune system to detect and amplify tumor-specific signals may enable detection of cancer using an inexpensive immunoassay. Immunosignatures are one such assay: they provide a map of antibody interactions with random-sequence peptides. They enable detection of disease-specific patterns using classic train/test methods. However, to date, very little effort has gone into extracting information from the sequence of peptides that interact with disease-specific antibodies. Because it is difficult to represent all possible antigen peptides in a microarray format, we chose to synthesize only 330,000 peptides on a single immunosignature microarray. The 330,000 random-sequence peptides on the microarray represent 83% of all tetramers and 27% of all pentamers, creating an unbiased but substantial gap in the coverage of total sequence space. We therefore chose to examine many relatively short motifs from these random-sequence peptides. Time-variant analysis of recurrent subsequences provided a means to dissect amino acid sequences from the peptides while simultaneously retaining the antibody–peptide binding intensities. We first used a simple experiment in which monoclonal antibodies with known linear epitopes were exposed to these random-sequence peptides, and their binding intensities were used to create our algorithm. We then demonstrated the performance of the proposed algorithm by examining immunosignatures from patients with Glioblastoma multiformae (GBM), an aggressive form of brain cancer. Eight different frameshift targets were identified from the random-sequence peptides using this technique. If immune-reactive antigens can be identified using a relatively simple immune assay, it might enable a diagnostic test with sufficient sensitivity to detect tumors in a clinically useful way.

We have previously shown that the diversity of antibodies in an individual can be displayed on chips on which 130,000 peptides chosen from random sequence space have been synthesized. This immunosignature technology is unbiased in displaying antibody diversity relative to natural sequence space, and has been shown to have diagnostic and prognostic potential for a wide variety of diseases and vaccines. Here we show that a global measure such as Shannon’s entropy can be calculated for each immunosignature. The immune entropy was measured across a diverse set of 800 people and in 5 individuals over 3 months. The immune entropy is affected by some population characteristics and varies widely across individuals. We find that people with infections or breast cancer, generally have higher entropy values than non-diseased individuals. We propose that the immune entropy as measured from immunosignatures may be a simple method to monitor health in individuals and populations.

Recent infectious outbreaks highlight the need for platform technologies that can be quickly deployed to develop therapeutics needed to contain the outbreak. We present a simple concept for rapid development of new antimicrobials. The goal was to produce in as little as one week thousands of doses of an intervention for a new pathogen. We tested the feasibility of a system based on antimicrobial synbodies. The system involves creating an array of 100 peptides that have been selected for broad capability to bind and/or kill viruses and bacteria. The peptides are pre-screened for low cell toxicity prior to large scale synthesis. Any pathogen is then assayed on the chip to find peptides that bind or kill it. Peptides are combined in pairs as synbodies and further screened for activity and toxicity. The lead synbody can be quickly produced in large scale, with completion of the entire process in one week.

It has long been accepted that modern reproductive patterns are likely contributors to breast cancer susceptibility because of their influence on hormones such as estrogen and the importance of these hormones in breast cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether this ‘evolutionary mismatch hypothesis’ can explain susceptibility to both estrogen receptor positive (ER-positive) and estrogen receptor negative (ER-negative) cancer. Our meta-analysis includes a total of 33 studies and examines parity, age of first birth and age of menarche broken down by estrogen receptor status. We found that modern reproductive patterns are more closely linked to ER-positive than ER-negative breast cancer. Thus, the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis for breast cancer can account for ER-positive breast cancer susceptibility but not ER-negative breast cancer.

In a meta-analysis published by myself and co-authors, we report differences in the life history risk factors for estrogen receptor negative (ER−) and estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers. Our meta-analysis did not find the association of ER− breast cancer risk with fast life history characteristics that Hidaka and Boddy suggest in their response to our article. There are a number of possible explanations for the differences between their conclusions and the conclusions we drew from our meta-analysis, including limitations of our meta-analysis and methodological challenges in measuring and categorizing estrogen receptor status. These challenges, along with the association of ER+ breast cancer with slow life history characteristics, may make it challenging to find a clear signal of ER− breast cancer with fast life history characteristics, even if that relationship does exist. The contradictory results regarding breast cancer risk and life history characteristics illustrate a more general challenge in evolutionary medicine: often different sub-theories in evolutionary biology make contradictory predictions about disease risk. In this case, life history models predict that breast cancer risk should increase with faster life history characteristics, while the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis predicts that breast cancer risk should increase with delayed reproduction. Whether life history tradeoffs contribute to ER− breast cancer is still an open question, but current models and several lines of evidence suggest that it is a possibility.

Cancer therapy selects for cancer cells resistant to treatment, a process that is fundamentally evolutionary. To what extent, however, is the evolutionary perspective employed in research on therapeutic resistance and relapse? We analyzed 6,228 papers on therapeutic resistance and/or relapse in cancers and found that the use of evolution terms in abstracts has remained at about 1% since the 1980s. However, detailed coding of 22 recent papers revealed a higher proportion of papers using evolutionary methods or evolutionary theory, although this number is still less than 10%. Despite the fact that relapse and therapeutic resistance is essentially an evolutionary process, it appears that this framework has not permeated research. This represents an unrealized opportunity for advances in research on therapeutic resistance.