Non-equivalence of Wnt and R-spondin ligands during Lgr5+ intestinal stem-cell self-renewal

The canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway governs diverse developmental, homeostatic and pathologic processes. Palmitoylated Wnt ligands engage cell surface Frizzled (Fzd) receptors and Lrp5/6 co-receptors enabling β-catenin nuclear translocation and Tcf/Lef-dependent gene transactivation1–3. Mutations in Wnt downstream signaling components have revealed diverse functions presumptively attributed to Wnt ligands themselves, although direct attribution remains elusive, as complicated by redundancy between 19 mammalian Wnts and 10 Fzds1 and Wnt hydrophobicity2,3. For example, individual Wnt ligand mutations have not revealed homeostatic phenotypes in the intestinal epithelium4, an archetypal canonical Wnt pathway-dependent rapidly self-renewing tissue whose regeneration is fueled by proliferative crypt Lgr5+ intestinal stem cells (ISCs)5–9. R-spondin ligands (Rspo1–4) engage distinct Lgr4-6 and Rnf43/Znrf3 receptor classes10–13, markedly potentiate canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling and induce intestinal organoid growth in vitro and Lgr5+ ISCs in vivo8,14–17. However, the interchangeability, functional cooperation and relative contributions of Wnt versus Rspo ligands to in vivo canonical Wnt signaling and ISC biology remain unknown. Here, we deconstructed functional roles of Wnt versus Rspo ligands in the intestinal crypt stem cell niche. We demonstrate that the default fate of Lgr5+ ISCs is lineage commitment, escape from which requires both Rspo and Wnt ligands. However, gain-of-function studies using Rspo versus a novel non-lipidated Wnt analog reveal qualitatively distinct, non-interchangeable roles for these ligands in ISCs. Wnts are insufficient to induce Lgr5+ ISC self-renewal, but rather confer a basal competency by maintaining Rspo receptor expression that enables Rspo to actively drive and specify the extent of stem cell expansion. This functionally non-equivalent yet cooperative interplay between Wnt and Rspo ligands establishes a molecular precedent for regulation of mammalian stem cells by distinct priming and self-renewal factors, with broad implications for precision control of tissue regeneration

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee