Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for May, 2016

Immunoassay vs LC/LC-MS

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Analyte Guru

Can LC/LC-MS Ever Replace Immunoassays?

May 2, 2016 by Dr. Timothy Cross
http://analyteguru.com/can-lclc-ms-ever-replace-immunoassays

shutterstock_215586691

I have been looking to write this for a while as I have to admit that I have a vested interest in both camps. As an immunologist by background, I’ve always been involved with immunoassays, but more recently my focus has been on liquid chromatography. In this blog I will give a balanced view of the pros and cons of each technique and finish up with my opinion. It will be interesting to see which camp you belong to.

Immunoassays

Immunoassays have been used extensively in all areas of life science research and in diagnostic applications for many years. The purpose of an immunoassay is to identify and quantitate specific antigens in a sample, for example in a diagnostic test, where the presence of that antigen could indicate the presence of disease. They use a combination of an antibody or antibody-like molecule to capture the specific antigen or molecule of interest and additionally a reporter molecule to measure the amount of antigen so that quantitative data on the concentration can be obtained when compared to a reference standard curve. The most common format is based on the sandwich ELISA approach where an antibody specific to the antigen of interest is attached to a solid surface (a microplate well or magnetic microsphere, for example) before being exposed to the sample. The antigen in the sample then binds to the antibody and unbound components of the sample are washed off before the addition of a second antibody specific to a different epitope on the target antigen is added. This second antibody has a reporter molecule or tag attached, such as horseradish peroxidase, so that the amount of bound antibody and thus the amount of antigen can be calculated from the signal created by the reporter/tag against a reference standard curve.

IA

Source.

Other variations of immunoassays are also used that rely on a single antibody with the array of antigens attached to the solid surface or the antigens are labelled directly, but whichever format is used they all apply the same basic principle of an antibody binding the specific antigen. For more information on immunoassays, download our immunoassay guide.

Advantages of Immunoassays

As would be expected with an established and extensively used technique there are a number of benefits of immunoassays:

  • Due to its wide use, the technique is well characterised, well understood, trusted and relatively straight forward to troubleshoot.
  • The equipment required is relatively inexpensive, flexible and scalable so you can choose from a relatively manual process with low capital investment to more automated and costly set-ups.
  • Typically the training requirements are relatively low for the basic day-to-day operation of immunoassays.
  • The technique generally offers good sensitivity and selectivity, has a broad dynamic range and is able to deal with complex samples containing multiple antigens.

Disadvantages of Immunoassay

As expected in science, as in life, there are always compromises to be made in, for example, performance and immunoassays are no exception, Here are some of their drawbacks:

  • The availability of a specific antibody is critical, in some cases an antibody or antibody pair may not exist or their specificity may be inadequate. Poor specificity can lead to low sensitivity and false results.
  • Coupled to the above, the range of analytes and antigens that can be detected with immunoassay is somewhat limited. Also it is very difficult to identify any post-translational modifications with immunoassay.
  • Immunoassays are a multi-step process, using a complex biological molecule (antibody), in a biological reaction and as such reproducibility of the process intra- and inter-lab can be an issue. Lot-to-lot variation in the antibody product itself also has to be carefully controlled.
  • While the cost of the capital equipment to perform the assay can be relatively inexpensive, the day-to-day running costs can be quite high due to the reagent usage and especially the antibody cost.
  • Sample volumes, especially in ELISA, can be quite high, although the ability to multiplex and application of new technologies are decreasing the sample volumes required.
  • Due to the need to bind antigen and antibody and the wash steps, the immunoassay process is quite long (1-3 hours), although again new technologies are decreasing this time.

LC / LC-MS

Liquid Chromatography (LC) and Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) both offer the potential to be an alternative to immunoassays are at least complementary. The LC / LC-MS process is similar to that of an immunoassay where the LC portion is performing part of the selectivity by separating your compounds/antigens from one another, but the identification and quantitation is done by the HPLC detector in LC (usually a simple UV based detection mechanism) and the mass spectrometer in LC-MS. So while they look and feel very different from immunoassays, the basic processs is essentially the same. How does LC and LC-MS stack up to immunoassay?

Advantages of LC / LC-MS

Liquid chromatography (LC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) technology has developed at a rapid pace over the previous decade and what might once have been seen as disadvantages are now strengths:

  • Modern ultra-high-performance LC (UHPLC) and MS instruments, coupled with powerful informatics means that samples can be run and analysed in minutes, giving high sample throughput.
  • Mass spectrometry offers the highest sensitivity and precision for the identification and detection of analytes. Liquid chromatography with high precision instruments such as the Thermo Scientific™ Vanquish™ UHPLC system, coupled with sensitive diode array detectors, also offers high performance.
  • Required sample volumes are very small, meaning less of a precious sample is required.
  • The process is almost completely automated, with few manual steps. When this is coupled to high precision instruments the results are highly reproducible with low coefficient of variance.
  • Day-to-day reagent costs are low.
  • A high degree of multiplexed analysis of analytes is possible.
  • The option is there for further characterisation of your antigen, for example sequence identification, analysis of isoforms and post translational modifications.
  • A wider range of compounds and analytes can be analysed.

Disadvantages of LC / LC-MS

There are still barriers to the widespread adoption of LC / LC-MS in immunoassay laboratories, these include:

  • High cost of the initial capital investment in instrumentation which can run in to several hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the type of instrumentation.
  • The technology is perceived as being complex to operate with a heavy training commitment; however modern instruments and software have reduced this with a trend to simplification of operation in recent years.
  • Selectivity in LC is not as good and as easy to optimise compared with immunoassays. Selectivity is obtained in LC by the column chemistry and does require some optimisation. This especially presents a problem with highly complex samples. In addition, when working with unknown or new samples and liquid chromatography, there is no direct way of identifying your specific antigen from all the others unless coupled to mass spectrometry. When coupled to MS, selectivity can be extremely high.

Can LC / LC-MS Ever Replace Immunoassays?

As indicated, I’m torn on this one, but believe that technological advances mean that soon LC and LC-MS will begin to replace immunoassays. However, I see an intermediate step in the transition that combines the best of both techniques.

I feel the major disadvantage with LC is that potential lack of selectivity and ability to identify accurately that particular antigen in a sea of others. If you could pull out that particular antigen, or small subset of antigens, first, then with a precise UHPLC instrument where you are confident that your antigen peak will elute at exactly the same time each run, then you can get all the LC benefits, while side-stepping immunoassay issues. The MS then adds an absolute layer of confidence and certainty to the identification although with additional cost.

One technology that could help in this respect is the Mass Spectrometric Immunoassay (MSIA™), and, as the name suggests, marries the best of both. It enables you to affinity capture your antigen of interest in a pipette tip format (offering low sample volumes and a degree of automation – tick, tick) and then elute the selected antigen for identification with LC or LC-MS.

In conclusion, I can see LC and LC-MS replacing immunoassays in the not too distant future.  Indeed in some areas they have already started to do so. For assay development I can see a MSIA approach or UHPLC coupled to High Resolution Accurate Mass (HRAM) mass spectrometry being used, but when the assay is established and routine and reference standards available it can be run on standalone LC or LC-MS and gain the advantages these techniques offer.

Additional Resources

View the LC / LC-MS options currently available from Thermo Fisher Scientific for diagnostics.

Learn more about MSIA technology and publications at the resource library.

Our webpages contain numerous resources and guides on immunoassays.

Read Full Post »

Pharmacogenetics

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

The New Landscape of Pharmacogenetics  

Standardized Assays Are Driving Preemptive Genotyping and Personalized Drug Therapies

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/pharmacogenetics-for-the-rest-of-us/5751/

  • For decades, genotyping has promised to serve as a practical means of relating genetic make-up and pharmacological efficiency—first at the level of patient groups and more recently at the level of individuals. Genotyping, however, still has a fairly limited role in determining which drug therapies, and which doses, should be used in specific circumstances.

    If genotyping is to find widespread adoption, it will have to overcome several barriers, most notably variation in assays and delay in reporting, difficulty in translating genotype into specific actions, and a perceived lack of economic and/or clinical value. Technological advances coupled with changes in the availability of genetic information will dramatically change the landscape of pharmacogenetics.

    The efficacy of any given drug therapy is dependent on a number of factors, most commonly described through the pharmacokinetic parameters of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination (ADME). Together, these factors determine whether a patient will need increased or decreased dosages, or whether a given therapy will work at all in that patient. Additionally, these factors can determine drug-drug interactions for patients on polypharmacy.

  • Genotype Variants

    Although a detailed description of specific genotype variants is beyond the scope of this article, a brief survey of the diversity of genotypes is helpful to provide a sense of the complexity that is inherent in genotyping, which has, in some ways, slowed the adoption of pharmacogenetics. As an example, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes are among the most highly polymorphic genes; more than 3,600 HLA class II alleles have been described.

    More than 50 human cytochromes P450 (CYPs) have been identified, and most have at least several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), with CYP2D6 having over 100 identified SNPs. Specific combinations of polymorphisms are translated into star alleles, which are used to predict the impact on therapeutic response.

    As might be expected, any individual enzyme can metabolize multiple drugs, and most drugs can be metabolized by multiple enzymes. Drugs can also inhibit metabolizing enzymes, while metabolizing enzymes can activate drugs by converting prodrugs into active metabolites. Generally, changes in functional activity of the enzyme are translated clinically by categorizing patients as poor, intermediate, extensive, or ultrarapid metabolizers.

    The FDA has now included pharmacogenomics information in the labeling of 166 approved drugs, some of which include specific action to be taken based on biomarker information. Table 1summarizes the biomarkers and indications for the pharmacogenomics labels. The FDA labels rangefrom dosage and pharmacokinetics information to precautions and, in nine of the labels, boxed warnings to highlight potentially serious adverse reactions.

    Most pharmacogenetics assays are currently offered as laboratory-developed tests; therefore, there is a wide range in the specific variants that are reported for any given target. As noted above, CYP2D6 has over 100 identified SNPs, and laboratories report various numbers of star alleles. Historically, this is because most genotyping assays involve methods based on the multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Accordingly, in these assays, the cost or effort to perform the genotyping is approximately proportional to the size of the panel.

    Additionally, because some of the functional variants are copy number changes, multiple assays may be required (for example, quantitative PCR for copy number, plus PCR for genotyping). More recent advances in microarray technology make it possible to perform more complete genotyping and copy number analysis of known star alleles simultaneously across multiple genes, thus reducing the cost and increasing the efficiency of pharmacogenomics. For example, the Affymetrix DMET Axiom Assay can analyze over 4,000 genotypes across 900 genes along with copy number in a single assay.

    From a regulatory perspective, it is likely that the disparate technologies laboratories use to generate their pharmacogenetics results will coalesce into a few, defined FDA-cleared devices. Because arrays can reproducibly provide comprehensive genotyping and copy number information at low cost, analytical and clinical validity can be readily demonstrated in a regulatory submission.

    The translation of specific genotype combinations into actionable clinical utility is hampered by difficulties in interpretation. Part of this relates to the somewhat ambiguous notation of the impact of a given star allele; the designation “ultrametabolizer,” for example, does not obviously translate to a specific dose for a given individual.

    Additionally, parameters such as ethnicity, age, body mass index, and gender can influence the pharmacokinetics in any specific individual. The establishment of guidelines can assist the practitioner in utilizing pharmacogenetics information to make therapeutic selections. At the forefront of establishing guidelines is the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), which provides guidelines centered around specific genes as well as for specific drugs.

  • Preemptive Genotyping

    Click Image To Enlarge +
    Physicians, who need to make therapeutic decisions quickly and cannot wait for genotype results, are increasingly looking at preemptive genotyping as a potential solution to improve treatment options. [iStock/D3Damon]

    In most cases, physicians need to make treatment decisions immediately and cannot wait for genotype results. The obvious solution to this is preemptive genotyping, which is being deployed at five academic medical institutions (Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, University of Florida and Shands Hospital, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center) as part of the Translational Pharmacogenetics Program.

    For preemptive genotyping to be widely deployed, the structure of electronic health records (EHRs) will need to evolve so that they enable the retrieval, storage, and reporting of complex genotyping data. Moreover, they will need to be able to provide the translation of star alleles with metabolizing status for specific drugs, dosing guidelines or suggestions for alternative drugs, and links to guidelines and other supporting information.

    The most sophisticated embodiments of EHRs will also take into account other information that can influence dosing contained within the EHR, such as the patient’s ethnicity, weight, sex, and other medications. Most EHRs lack such capabilities, but two trends will substantially alter this landscape.

    First, there is an increasing recognition of the role medical informatics plays in healthcare and an increased emphasis on this role at medical institutions, both academic and community-based. Second, the entry of high-tech giants such as Google and Apple into the medical informatics and large-scale genotyping/genetic analysis arena will accelerate the development of these tools.

    Third-party payers have generally been reluctant to pay for most pharmacogenetics tests. The paucity of prospective randomized clinical studies showing either clinical or economic utility remains a fundamental hurdle for widespread adoption of pharmacogenetics. A likely path for the generation of clinical data will be through large, publicly funded genotyping initiatives in combination with investigator-initiated studies that rely primarily on mining EHRs for dosing, adverse reaction, and outcome information.

    One such initiative is tied to the Million Veterans Program. It is mining data to explore the pharmacogenetics of metformin response in diabetics with renal disease.

    Another push may come from consumers who choose to proactively obtain their pharmacogenetics information. Such activity will heavily depend on the appropriate EHR and bioinformatics infrastructure at primary care centers as well as harmonization of analytical test methods. These requirements suggest that consumer-driven work will lag the efforts at academic medical centers.

  • Future Perspectives

    Future Perspectives

    The pace at which pharmacogenetics is incorporated into healthcare will increase due to factors such as the decreasing cost of genotyping, the installation of a medical informatics infrastructure, and increased consumer demand for personal genotyping information. Moreover, these factors will reinforce each other and help preemptive genotyping become the norm rather than the exception.

    As this trend gathers momentum, it will begin contributing to a virtuous cycle in which the increased availability of genotyping data associated with outcome information will permit the development of additional and more precise treatment algorithms. Technological advances in genotyping, most notably high-density genotyping at low cost with high reproducibility, and medical informatics will be key to making this a reality.

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs)

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP: Curator

LPBI

UPDATED 6/01/2024

Below are a curation of reports highlighting both clinical trial failures and serious adverse events reported from clinical trials of various antibody drug or antibody radioligand conjugates.  As see below, there have been mutliple failures of these types of biological entitites in oncology clinical trials, either displaying issues related to efficacy and/or safety.

Source: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/asco-jjs-radioligand-spurs-responses-4-deaths-mar-early-results

ASCO: J&J’s radioligand spurs responses, but 4 deaths mar early results
By Annalee Armstrong May 24, 2024

Johnson & Johnson’s radiopharmaceutical spurred “profound and durable” responses, however, four patient deaths in the early-stage trial marred the results.

JNJ-6420 is an anti-hK2 antibody-based targeted radioligand therapy that’s designed to deliver a high-energy, short-range alpha-particle emitter to prostate cancer cells. The first-in-human study tested the radiopharmaceutical in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have previously received at least one prior androgen receptor pathway inhibitor. The results are to be presented next week at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. The goal of the phase 1 dose-escalation study was to demonstrate the drug’s safety and to find a dose to move into phase 2. In one trial group, 37 patients were on a fixed dosing starting schedule, receiving between 50 μCi and up to 300 μCi. Twenty-nine patients in the other trial group were capped at a cumulative 500-μCi dose. As of the Jan. 5 data cutoff, 64 patients had received at least one dose of JNJ-6420, with safety data being recorded for 57 patients who had received 150 μCi. Of these patients, 35, or 61%, experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and 21, or 37%, had a serious TEAE. Almost all patients experienced some sort of TEAE. There were four deaths due to TEAEs, which were associated with repeated dosing of JNJ-6420. The full data set linked two of the deaths to interstitial lung disease (ILD), one to respiratory failure related to COVID-19 and one to decreased appetite/hypotension. ILD is a common adverse event in oncology treatment, particularly for antibody-drug conjugates. The condition causes progressive scarring of lung tissue. The deaths related to ILD occurred in patients who had received cumulative doses greater than or equal to 750 μCi. To address the risk of ILD and thrombocytopenia, the study investigators are recommending a cumulative dose cap and an adaptive dose schedule. Evaluation of adaptive dosing is ongoing.  Other common TEAEs in the study included anemia and two conditions related to low white blood cells, lymphopenia and leukopenia. Nine patients discontinued treatment. As for the responses, the data showed a reported PSA50 rate of 45.6%. This is a measure of prostatic-specific antigen, which is a key biomarker in prostate cancer. A PSA response is associated with prolonged overall survival.

ADC puts Zynlonta study on hold after 7 patient deaths, 5 other severe adverse events (2023)

Source: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/adc-therapeutics-puts-zynlonta-study-enrollment-pause-after-seven-patient-deaths-five-other

By Zoey Becker  Jul 11, 2023

DC Therapeutics has slammed the brakes on enrollment in a phase 2 combination trial for Zynlonta as it investigates seven patient deaths and five other severe respiratory events among patients who received the drug.

For the study in unfit or frail patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), investigators had enrolled 40 participants. After receiving the ADC drug, 12 of them experienced respiratory-related, treatment-emergent adverse events, ADC said in a Tuesday release.

The investigators concluded that 11 of the events, including six of the deaths, were “unrelated” to the Zynlonta treatment or unlikely to be related to the drug, ADC said.  All of the patients who died suffered from at least one “significant” comorbidity, including obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary edema, chronic bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or recent COVID-19 infection. All of the patients who passed away were at least 80 years of age, according to the company. ADC said it put a “voluntary pause” on the trial to gain more time to “evaluate data … and determine next steps.” The study was testing ADC’s medicine in combination with Roche’s Rituxan. “Our top priority is the safety of every patient who participates in our clinical trials,” CEO Ameet Mallik said in the company’s statement. “This trial includes a very difficult-to-treat patient population with limited treatment options, and we will provide an update on next steps when available.” ADC has notified the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and doesn’t expect to report any additional trial data by the end of the year.

However in 2024 from ADC Therapeutics site

ZYNLONTA® 1 4Q 2023 net sales expected to be ~$16.5 million, a double-digit percentage increase as compared to 3Q 2023

LOTIS-7: Study of ZYNLONTA in combination with bispecifics cleared first dosing cohort​ with no DLT and with early signs of efficacy

ADCT-601 (targeting AXL): Reached MTD and currently in dose optimization; Early signs of antitumor activity in both monotherapy and in combination

Multiple data catalysts expected in 2024 and with a cash runway now expected into 4Q 2025

LAUSANNE, Switzerland, Jan. 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ADC Therapeutics SA (NYSE: ADCT) today provided business updates.

“During 2023, we took a number of decisive actions to help position the Company for success in 2024 and beyond. We prioritized our pipeline, strengthened our organization and implemented a disciplined capital allocation model to generate cost efficiencies,” said Ameet Mallik, Chief Executive Officer of ADC Therapeutics. “We believe we are starting to see signs of the commercial turnaround. We are also encouraged to see positive initial signals in the LOTIS-7 trial of ZYNLONTA in combination with bispecifics as well as early signs of antitumor activity in the Phase 1b trial of ADCT-601. We now expect our cash runway to extend into the fourth quarter of 2025 and believe we are on a path to unlock the substantial value in the Company.”

Source: ADC Therapeutics Press Release at https://ir.adctherapeutics.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2024/ADC-Therapeutics-Provides-Business-Updates/default.aspx

 

Processes for Constructing Homogeneous Antibody Drug Conjugates

by DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO Ph.D

Processes for Constructing Homogeneous Antibody Drug Conjugates

Igenica Biotherapeutics, 863A Mitten Road, Suite 100B, Burlingame, California 94010, United States
Org. Process Res. Dev., Article ASAP

Abstract Image

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) are synthesized by conjugating a cytotoxic drug or “payload” to a monoclonal antibody. The payloads are conjugated using amino or sulfhydryl specific linkers that react with lysines or cysteines on the antibody surface. A typical antibody contains over 60 lysines and up to 12 cysteines as potential conjugation sites. The desired DAR (drugs/antibody ratio) depends on a number of different factors and ranges from two to eight drugs/antibody. The discrepancy between the number of potential conjugation sites and the desired DAR, combined with use of conventional conjugation methods that are not site-specific, results in heterogeneous ADCs that vary in both DAR and conjugation sites. Heterogeneous ADCs contain significant fractions with suboptimal DARs that are known to possess undesired pharmacological properties. As a result, new methods for synthesizing homogeneous ADCs have been developed in order to increase their potential as therapeutic agents. This article will review recently reported processes for preparing ADCs with improved homogeneity. The advantages and potential limitations of each process are discussed, with emphasis on efficiency, quality, and in vivo efficacy relative to similar heterogeneous ADCs.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) are a rapidly growing class of targeted therapeutic agents for treatment of cancer.(1-8) Although the number of ADCs in clinical trials has steadily increased since 2005, many have failed to reach the later stages of clinical development; one has been withdrawn from the market (Mylotarg in 2002), and only two (Adcetris and Kadcyla) are currently approved by the FDA for cancer indications (Figure 1A).(9-11) Thus, far, the approval rate for ADCs has not met early expectations and is lagging behind other antibody-based therapeutics. Based on the number of approved ADCs versus those that have failed to progress into later stage clinical trials, the success rate is reminiscent of that for small molecule drugs. The reasons for the clinical failures of ADCs are often not known or they are still under investigation. More commonly, when the reasons for clinical failure are clear, the information is not made available to the public domain. Emerging preclinical data suggests that heterogeneity, a property shared by most ADCs currently in clinical development (Table 1), may ultimately limit their potential as therapeutic agents.(12, 13)

Table 1. Examples of Heterogeneous ADCs Currently in Clinical Trials for Cancer Indicationsa

a Source: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

 

 

http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/oprdfk/0/oprdfk.ahead-of-print/acs.oprd.6b00067/20160428/images/large/op-2016-00067k_0001.jpeg

Figure 1. (A) Number of ADCs in different stages of clinical development from 2006 to 2014. (B) Structure of a typical IgG antibody showing lysines (red), cysteines (yellow), and glycans (green) as potential conjugation sites.(16)

ADCs are composed of a cytotoxic drug or “payload” conjugated to a tumor selective monoclonal antibody. The heterogeneity of conventional ADCs arises from the synthetic processes currently used for conjugation.(14) Payloads are typically conjugated to the antibody using amino or thiol specific linkers that react with lysines or cysteines on the antibody surface.(15) A typical antibody contains more than 50 lysines and up to 12 cysteines as potential conjugation sites (Figure 1B).(16) The optimal DAR (drugs/antibody ratio) for most ADCs, however, ranges from 2 to 8 drugs/antibody and is dependent upon a variety of different factors. The discrepancy between the number of potential conjugation sites and the desired DAR, combined with the use of conjugation methods that are not site-specific, result in heterogeneous ADCs that vary in both DAR and conjugation sites. Consequently, conventional heterogeneous ADCs often contain significant amounts of unconjugated antibody in addition to fractions with suboptimal DARs. Unconjugated antibodies can compete for antigen binding and inhibit ADC activity, while fractions with suboptimal DARs are frequently prone to aggregation, poor solubility, and/or instability that ultimately result in a poor therapeutic window.(17, 18)
The relative degree of ADC heterogeneity depends on the methods used for conjugation. For example, Kadcyla, an ADC approved in 2013 for breast cancer, is synthesized using a two-step process in which the linker and payload are conjugated in separate steps (Scheme 1A).(19-21)The linker contains an amino-specific NHS ester that reacts with antibody lysines in the first step and a thiol-specific maleimide group that reacts with a maytansinoid payload in the second step. The process affords a highly heterogeneous mixture of ADC molecules containing from 0 to 10 payloads/antibody with an average DAR of 3.5 drugs/antibody.(22, 23) Additional heterogeneity arises due to distribution of the payloads across dozens of potential conjugation sites. As a result, Kadcyla contains hundreds of different ADC molecules, each with its own unique pharmacological properties.(24)
Scheme 1. (A) General Process for Synthesizing ADCs such as Kadcyla via Lysine Conjugation; (B) General Process for Synthesizing ADCs, such as Adcetris, via Cysteine Conjugation
Conjugation of payloads to antibodies through interchain cysteines reduces ADC heterogeneity relative to lysine conjugation because there are fewer potential conjugation sites. Adcetris, an ADC approved in 2011 for treatment of Hodgkin’s lymphoma, is an example of a cysteine conjugated ADC.(25-27) The process for cysteine conjugation involves partial reduction of four antibody interchain disulfide bonds to generate up to eight reactive thiol groups. The partially reduced antibody is subsequently conjugated to a payload containing a thiol-specific maleimide linker. The payload used for Adcetris is monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) and contains a protease cleavable maleimide linker (Scheme 1B). Although Adcetris is less heterogeneous than Kadcyla, it is composed of dozens of different ADC molecules containing 0 to 8 payloads with an average DAR of 3.6 drugs/antibody.(28) Like most cysteine conjugated ADCs, Adcetris has a reduced half-life in vivo compared to the parent antibody, cAC10. The diminished half-life has been attributed to rapid clearance of high DAR species (>4 drugs/antibody) and to partial loss of interchain disulfide bonds during the conjugation process.(29, 30)
Although different processes for lysine and cysteine conjugation are used to synthesize Adcetris and Kadcyla, both ADCs contain thio-succinimide bonds between the payload and the antibody, which originate from the use of maleimide linkers in the conjugation processes. Kadcyla contains a thio-succinimide between the linker and the payload (Scheme 1A), while Adcetris contains a thio-succinimide bond between the linker and the antibody (Scheme 1B). Thio-succinimide groups are known to undergo undesired side reactions such as elimination or thiol exchange that can result in premature release of the payloads from the ADC and lead to reduced potency and/or increased systemic toxicity.(31, 32)
Despite the known limitations of conventional heterogeneous ADCs, most ADCs currently in clinical development utilize similar conjugation methods to those described in Scheme 1. As a result, they are likely to possess similar pharmacological properties to Adcetris and Kadcyla, in addition to other less successful ADCs that may have performed poorly in clinical trials. In order to improve the pharmacological properties of current and future ADCs, new site-specific conjugation processes for synthesizing homogeneous ADCs are now being developed.(33-36)
Site-specific conjugation processes for constructing homogeneous ADCs can be divided into three different categories. Two are focused on antibody modification (engineered amino acids and enzyme mediated), while the third category is focused on linker modification. The categories can be subdivided further based on the specific processes that are used (Table 2). Examples from each process were selected based on availability of sufficient preclinical data to enable comparison with similar conventional heterogeneous ADCs. Homogeneous ADCs derived from these processes have only just begun to enter clinical trials. Whether they will outperform their heterogeneous counterparts in clinical trials remains uncertain, but preclinical data suggest that homogeneous ADCs are likely to dominate future clinical trials and will lead to improved clinical results.
Table 2. Summary of Different Processes for Constructing Homogeneous ADCs
…….
All of the processes reviewed here were successfully used to construct ADCs with improved homogeneity over ADCs synthesized using conventional methods. A majority of approaches utilize recombinant antibody engineering to introduce unique functional groups for site-specific conjugation. The unique functional groups were introduced either as point mutations for cysteine and non-natural amino acids or as enzyme recognition tags. These recombinant engineering approaches offer several potential advantages over nonrecombinant approaches. For example, engineered cysteines can be incorporated into dozens of different sites with minimal impact on the functional properties of the antibody. This enables ADCs to be optimized for conjugation efficiency, linker stability, and potency. Engineered non-natural amino acids offer additional advantages due to the diverse array of different functional groups that can be introduced. Furthermore, non-natural amino acids enable a variety of new linker chemistries to be investigated that are not possible with conventional conjugation processes.
The flexibility offered by recombinant processes may also represent their greatest challenge. The importance of the conjugation site for ADC activity is well-established, but additional factors should be considered before selecting a development candidate. Potential effects on antibody expression, conjugation efficiency, linker stability, aggregation, and other factors need to be considered before selecting a specific conjugation site. These factors can ultimately determine the success or failure of an ADC development program. Since antibodies share many of the same properties, it seems likely that optimal conjugation sites will be identified that are broadly effective when used with different antibodies. Other potential challenges for processes involving antibody engineering include increased development time and costs, immunogenicity of engineered sequence tags, scalability, and use of novel linkers and payloads that are not yet clinically validated.
In addition to homogeneity, improvements in other ADC properties such as potency, stability and half-life were observed. In fact, many of the homogeneous ADCs derived from these processes out-performed conventional heterogeneous ADCs in efficacy and safety studies. Much of their success has been attributed to elimination of high DAR species present in conventional ADCs. In general, experimental results are consistent with this conclusion, and many would agree that substantial progress has resulted from these efforts to improve ADC homogeneity. Ironically, the relative contribution of homogeneity to the improved properties of the engineered ADCs could not be determined from most studies because other factors known to effect ADC activity could not be ruled out.
For instance, recombinant approaches for making homogeneous ADCs were designed to introduce conjugation sites in different locations from those used in conventional methods. Since it is now well-established that “location matters”, the observed differences in activity between TDCs (or NDCs) and the conventional ADC controls could result from different conjugation sites, rather than from elimination of high DAR species. Enzyme mediated approaches face similar challenges when comparing homogeneous and heterogeneous ADCs because the conjugation sites are different. Other variables such as linker type (cleavable or noncleavable) and payload (maytansine or PBD) need to be carefully controlled before reaching conclusions about the benefits of homogeneity.
Linker based processes are more suitable for comparing homogeneous ADCs with conventional heterogeneous ADCs because they utilize the same conjugation sites. Once other variables that might impact ADC activity were carefully controlled, the relative benefits of homogeneity were revealed for the first time and the results confirmed that efforts to improve ADC homogeneity have been a worthwhile endeavor.
Most of the processes reviewed here are still in early phases of clinical development. All of the methods have advantages and limitations that will ultimately decide which approach will become the preferred process for manufacturing homogeneous ADCs. It is not yet clear which process will rise above the others as a preferred method, but all of these approaches have contributed valuable information to our knowledge base and resulted in ADCs with improved pharmacological properties over conventional heterogeneous ADCs. Our future challenge will be to apply this knowledge to develop ADCs that will be more effective as therapeutic agents. Our ability to synthesize homogeneous ADCs provides another reason to be optimistic about the future of ADCs.
ACS Editors’ Choice – This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.

Read Full Post »

Omega 3 fatty acids for cognitive decline

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Alpha-linolenic acid given as enteral or parenteral nutritional intervention against sensorimotor and cognitive deficits in a mouse model of ischemic stroke

Miled Bourouroua, b,  Catherine Heurteauxa, bNicolas Blondeaua, b,

Neuropharmacology  Available online 29 April 2016    doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.04.040
Highlights
•   High level of disability remains a substantial problem for stroke.
•   An emerging concept to support stroke recovery is nutritional support.
•   We compared whether oral or i.v supplementation of the omega-3, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) best support recovery from stroke.
•   Both types of ALA supplementation improved spatial learning and memory after stroke.
•   This supports therapeutic plans using nutritional support in ALA in recovery from stroke.

 

Image for unlabelled figure

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0028390816301800-fx1.jpg

 

Stroke is a leading cause of disability and death worldwide. Numerous therapeutics applied acutely after stroke have failed to improve long-term clinical outcomes. An emerging direction is nutritional intervention with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids acting as disease-modifying factors and targeting post-stroke disabilities. Our previous studies demonstrated that the omega-3 precursor, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) administrated by injections or dietary supplementation reduces stroke damage by direct neuroprotection, and triggering brain artery vasodilatation and neuroplasticity. Successful translation of putative therapies will depend on demonstration of robust efficacy on common deficits resulting from stroke like loss of motor control and memory/learning. This study evaluated the value of ALA as adjunctive therapy for stroke recovery by comparing whether oral or intravenous supplementation of ALA best support recovery from ischemia. Motor and cognitive deficits were assessed using rotarod, pole and Morris water maze tests. ALA supplementation in diet was better than intravenous treatment in improving motor coordination, but this improvement was not due to a neuroprotective effect since infarct size was not reduced. Both types of ALA supplementation improved spatial learning and memory after stroke. This cognitive improvement correlated with higher survival of hippocampal neurons. These results support clinical investigation establishing therapeutic plans using ALA supplementation

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Value of Prediction for Response to Immunotherapies: Genomic Approaches for the Advancement of Neo-Antigen Understanding in Immunotherapy

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Genomic Approaches for the Advancement of Neo-Antigen Understanding in Immunotherapy

Recorded February 17, 2016

WATCH WEBINAR

Download Webinar

Sponsored by
Personal Genome Diagnostics logo

Webinar Description:

Preview:

Cancer immune therapies have recently demonstrated exciting clinical benefits for a number of cancer types. Somatic mutations in an individual’s cancer cells encode neoantigens. Clinical responses to cancer immune therapies including T cell transfer and checkpoint blockade are primarily mediated by neoantigen specific reactivity. Advances in next-generation sequencing and bioinformatics prediction allow for the rapid and affordable identification of neoantigens in individuals, which have profoundly impacted immuno-oncology drug development.

In this webinar, Dr. Victor Velculescu will highlight efforts that his group and colleagues at PGDx have pioneered for whole exome sequencing and neoantigen prediction. Dr. Drew Pardoll and lab have used this approach to identify intratumoral mutations in lung and colorectal cancer patients who have received anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. Dr. Theresa Zhang will describe how this approach, which utilizes a streamlined neoantigen prediction pipeline, ImmunoSelectTM R, allows for prioritization of thousands of epitopes that result from somatic mutations into a selection that are most likely to produce adaptive responses. These results and experiences will illustrate how correlates of a response to immunotherapy may better identify patients who will benefit from anti-PD-1 and other forms of immune therapy.

Learning Objectives:

  • Overview of Cancer Genomics
  • Understand how neoantigen prediction can adapt response to immunotherapy in certain populations
  • Learn more about PGDx technologies for advancing the value of prediction for response to immunotherapies

Speaker Information:

Dr. Victor Velculescu, M.D., Ph.D.

Professor of Oncology and Co-Director of Cancer Biology Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center

Founder, Personal Genome Diagnostics

Dr. Velculescu is Professor of Oncology and Co-Director of Cancer Biology at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and a co-founder of Personal Genome Diagnostics. He has a B.S. from Stanford University, and M.D., Ph.D. degrees from Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. Drew Pardoll, M.D., Ph.D.

Abeloff Professor of Oncology and Director of Cancer Immunology

Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center

Drew M. Pardoll, M.D., Ph.D., is an Abeloff Professor of Oncology, Medicine, Pathology and Molecular Biology and Genetics at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine. He is director of the Cancer Immunology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center. Pardoll completed his medical and doctorate degrees, and medical residency and oncology fellowship at Johns Hopkins University.

Theresa Zhang, Ph.D.

VP of Research Services

Personal Genome Diagnostics

Dr. Zhang received BS degrees from Peking University and Bridgewater College and a PhD from the University of Virginia. She completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship in bioinformatics at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. Dr. Zhang is a co-author of numerous scientific publications and a frequent presenter at scientific meetings.

Download Webinar
SOURCE

Read Full Post »

Progress in the Design, Testing, and Approval of Immuno-therapeutic Reagents: Target the Most Promising Cancer Antigens  – NCI Pilot Project for the Acceleration of Translational Research

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Sep 1;15(17):5323-37. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0737.

The prioritization of cancer antigens: a national cancer institute pilot project for the acceleration of translational research.

Abstract

The purpose of the National Cancer Institute pilot project to prioritize cancer antigens was to develop a well-vetted, priority-ranked list of cancer vaccine target antigens based on predefined and preweighted objective criteria. An additional aim was for the National Cancer Institute to test a new approach for prioritizing translational research opportunities based on an analytic hierarchy process for dealing with complex decisions. Antigen prioritization involved developing a list of “ideal” cancer antigen criteria/characteristics, assigning relative weights to those criteria using pairwise comparisons, selecting 75 representative antigens for comparison and ranking, assembling information on the predefined criteria for the selected antigens, and ranking the antigens based on the predefined, preweighted criteria. Using the pairwise approach, the result of criteria weighting, in descending order, was as follows: (a) therapeutic function, (b) immunogenicity, (c) role of the antigen in oncogenicity, (d) specificity, (e) expression level and percent of antigen-positive cells, (f) stem cell expression, (g) number of patients with antigen-positive cancers, (h) number of antigenic epitopes, and (i) cellular location of antigen expression. None of the 75 antigens had all of the characteristics of the ideal cancer antigen. However, 46 were immunogenic in clinical trials and 20 of them had suggestive clinical efficacy in the “therapeutic function” category. These findings reflect the current status of the cancer vaccine field, highlight the possibility that additional organized efforts and funding would accelerate the development of therapeutically effective cancer vaccines, and accentuate the need for prioritization.

PMID:
19723653
[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
SOURCE

Read Full Post »

Free Bio-IT World Webinar: Machine Learning to Detect Cancer Variants

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

 

     


SomaticSeq: An Ensemble Approach with Machine Learning to Detect Cancer Variants

June 16 at 1pm EDT Register for this Webinar |  View All Webinars

Accurate detection of somatic mutations has proven to be challenging in cancer NGS analysis, due to tumor heterogeneity and cross-contamination between tumor and matched normal samples. Oftentimes, a somatic caller that performs well for one tumor may not for another.

In this webinar we will introduce SomaticSeq, a tool within the Bina Genomic Management Solution (Bina GMS) designed to boost the accuracy of somatic mutation detection with a machine learning approach. You will learn:

  • Benchmarking of leading somatic callers, namely MuTect, SomaticSniper, VarScan2, JointSNVMix2, and VarDict
  • Integration of such tools and how accuracy is achieved using a machine learning classifier that incorporates over 70 features with SomaticSeq
  • Accuracy validation including results from the ICGC-TCGA DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling Challenge, in which Bina placed 1st in indel calling and 2nd in SNV calling in stage 5
  • Creation of a new SomaticSeq classifier utilizing your own dataset
  • Review of the somatic workflow within the Bina Genomic Management Solution

Speakers:

Li Tai Fang

Li Tai Fang
Sr. Bioinformatics Scientist
Bina Technologies, Part of
Roche Sequencing

Anoop Grewal

Anoop Grewal
Product Marketing Manager
Bina Technologies, Part of
Roche Sequencing

<Read full speaker bios here>

Cost: No cost!

Schedule conflict? Register now and you’ll receive a copy of the recording.

This webinar is compliments of: 

Bio-ITWorld.com/Bio-IT-Webinars

Read Full Post »

Amgen’s Corlanor® can help Reduce the Risk of Hospitalization for Patients with worsening Heart Failure

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

The hypothetical Heart Failure patients

  • Patients with stable, symptomatic chronic heart failure,
  • with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, who are in
  • sinus rhythm with resting heart rate ≥ 70 beats per minute, and either are
  • on maximally tolerated doses of beta-blockers or have a contraindication to beta-blocker use
  1. MAX-TOLERATED BETA-BLOCKER DOSE

    Carvedilol 3.125 mg 2x/day(recently reduced to a lower dose)

  2.  

    REASONS FOR NOT RECEIVING GUIDELINE-RECOMMENDED DOSE

    • Hypotension
    • Erectile dysfunction

INDICATION

Corlanor® (ivabradine) is indicated to reduce the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure in patients with stable, symptomatic chronic heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, who are in sinus rhythm with resting heart rate ≥ 70 beats per minute and either are on maximally tolerated doses of beta-blockers or have a contraindication to beta-blocker use.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

•  

Contraindications: Corlanor® is contraindicated in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, blood pressure < 90/50 mmHg, sick sinus syndrome, sinoatrial block, 3rd degree atrioventricular block (unless a functioning demand pacemaker is present), a resting heart rate < 60 bpm prior to treatment, severe hepatic impairment, pacemaker dependence (heart rate maintained exclusively by the pacemaker), and concomitant use of strong cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitors.

•  

Fetal Toxicity: Corlanor® may cause fetal toxicity when administered to a pregnant woman based on embryo-fetal toxicity and cardiac teratogenic effects observed in animal studies. Advise females to use effective contraception when taking Corlanor®.

•  

Atrial Fibrillation: Corlanor® increases the risk of atrial fibrillation. The rate of atrial fibrillation in patients treated with Corlanor® compared to placebo was 5% vs. 3.9% per patient-year, respectively. Regularly monitor cardiac rhythm. Discontinue Corlanor® if atrial fibrillation develops.

•  

Bradycardia and Conduction Disturbances: Bradycardia, sinus arrest and heart block have occurred with Corlanor®. The rate of bradycardia in patients treated with Corlanor® compared to placebo was 6% (2.7% symptomatic; 3.4% asymptomatic) vs. 1.3% per patient-year, respectively. Risk factors for bradycardia include sinus node dysfunction, conduction defects, ventricular dyssynchrony, and use of other negative chronotropes. Concurrent use of verapamil or diltiazem also increases Corlanor® exposure, contributes to heart rate lowering, and should be avoided. Avoid use of Corlanor® in patients with 2nd degree atrioventricular block unless a functioning demand pacemaker is present.

•  

Adverse Reactions: The most common adverse drug reactions reported at least 1% more frequently with Corlanor® than placebo and that occurred in more than 1% of patients treated with Corlanor® were bradycardia (10% vs. 2.2%), hypertension or increased blood pressure (8.9% vs. 7.8%), atrial fibrillation (8.3% vs. 6.6%), and luminous phenomena (phosphenes) or visual brightness (2.8% vs. 0.5%).

Please see full Prescribing Information and Medication Guide.

BPM = beats per minute; HF = heart failure; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction.

Reference:

1. Corlanor® (ivabradine) Prescribing Information, Amgen.

SOURCES

www.amgen.com

From: WebMD Professional Clinical Update <Clinical_Update@mail.webmdprofessional.com>

Reply-To: WebMD Professional <reply-fe9415707d60067476-100_HTML-1821998-7000930-1@mail.webmdprofessional.com>

Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:11 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Concerned about hospitalization in your patients with chronic HF?

Read Full Post »

Scientists Create a 5-atom Quantum Computer That Could Make Today’s Encryption Obsolete

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

 

MIT scientists have developed a 5-atom quantum computer, one that is able to render traditional encryption obsolete.

Sourced through Scoop.it from: futurism.com

See on Scoop.itCardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

Diversification and Acquisitions, 2001 – 2015: Trail known as “Google Acquisitions” – Understanding Alphabet’s Acquisitions: A Sector-By-Sector Analysis

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

GoogleAcquisitons

SOURCE

https://www.cbinsights.com/research-google-acquisitions?utm_source=CB+Insights+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2d8a0dbc59-TuesNL_05_03_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9dc0513989-2d8a0dbc59-87377285

 

Understanding Alphabet’s Acquisitions: A Sector-By-Sector Analysis

Google has made nearly 200 acquisitions since 2001. When the company reorganized as a new entity called Alphabet in late 2015, the new structure refocused attention on Google’s non-advertising businesses, including Calico (healthcare), Google X (self-driving cars , robots, etc.), and Nest (smart home), all of which now effectively operate as their own divisions.

We analyzed some of the sectors outside search and digital advertising where Alphabet has made recent acquisitions:

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

Google paid $1.7B for YouTube in 2006 in what is widely regarded as one of the most important consumer tech acquisitions of all time. Since then, Google has acquired more video-related companies whose technologies were absorbed into YouTube, including an easy-to-use video-creation tool (Directr), video-rendering tech (Zync), and social video software (Omnisio).

More recently, YouTube has signaled its interest in content, acquiring Next New Networks in 2011 (it became YouTube’s Next Lab to scout talent) and Vidmaker (a kind of Google docs for video editing, used by semi-professional and professional video creators). The rollout of YouTube Red, an ad-free subscription-based version of YouTube, could point to more content-related acquisitions if the model succeeds.

VR is another area of interest for Google. The company acquired Skillman & Hackett, which makes software that allows users to “paint” in virtual reality environments, and also acquired the team from Thrive Audio, which specializes in “positional audio” which will be key for adding a soundtrack to immersive VR experiences. Digisfera, a company that specializes in 360-degree imaging, has use cases in Google’s mapping projects, but could also be useful since 360-degree images are also used in VR content (YouTube has already 360-degree video support for VR enthusiasts).

AUTO TECH AND NAVIGATION 

The two fields are interrelated, with Google’s market-leading maps giving the giant a good footing in the race to build autonomous vehicles. Several of Google’s acquisitions helped make Google Maps and its underlying data more robust, including companies focused on satellites (Skybox Imaging) and crowdsourced traffic data (Waze). Google also acquired Lumedyne, a company that creates microsensors, which could be used in various car parts that could help power and refine self-driving cars.

ROBOTICS 

Alphabet made more than 7 robotics acquisitions in 2013 as the company continues to make serious forays into the space including a recently filed patents for controlling large groups of robots and creating downloadable personalities. The robotics companies that were acquired develop machines for a wide set of use cases. Boston Dynamics has developed a robotic cheetah, Industrial Perception’s robots are designed to locate objects and move them in warehouse environments, and Bot & Dolly develops robots to assist in filmmaking.

SMART HOME

Google’s largest acquisition ever was for Nest in 2014 for $3.2B, and now operates as one of Alphabet’s divisions under Tony Fadell. The company has made other acquisitions to bolster its home offerings, including Dropcam for home security and Revolv, a smart home hub. While the Revolv product was discontinued, the team helped develop Google’s OnHub, a centralized Wi-Fi and Smart Home device. Alphabet also acquired Flutter, a gesture-recognition company, which would allow for new, convenient ways for consumers to control smart home devices (Project Soli is already using gesture-recognition in really interesting ways).

COMMERCE

Since 2011, Alphabet has bought more than 15 companies involved with powering commerce and small businesses. Many acquisitions helped build “Google Shopping”, which is the company’s foray into ecommerce, and “Google Express”, a gigantic logistics endeavor for product delivery. Google also bought Rangespan and Channel Intelligence, both designed to use data to help businesses sell their goods online. In the past, the company has also purchased daily deals sites (DailyDeal, The Dealmap), targeted coupons (Incentive Targeting, Zave Networks), and loyalty programs (Punchd).

GOOGLE FOR ENTERPRISE/PRODUCTIVITY

Alphabet has several productivity products aimed at least in part at enterprises, including Drive, Hangouts, and Docs. Many of the acquisitions were early (pre-2011) and helped these products come into being, including Urchin Software (acquired in 2005), which became Google Analytics, and Writely (acquired in 2006), which fed into documents. Virtual assistants like Google Now might be enhanced through the recent acquisitions of Timeful (artificial intelligence) and Emu (natural language processing), technologies that could help create smart scheduling features. Alphabet could also be trying to enter the mobile enterprise market with the acquisition of Divide, a company that allows employees to carry a single phone with a “work” mode and “personal” mode.

CLOUD

Google has also made acquisitions to bolster its Google Cloud Platform and help it compete effectively for users and app deployments with Amazon’s AWS Microsoft’s Azure, and other providers. In 2014, Google made 4 acquisitions on this front in the form of Stackdriver, Appurify, Zync Render, and Firebase.

HEALTHCARE

While Google is heavily involved in healthcare through Google X, Calico, and its Life Sciences division, the company has made few disclosed healthcare acquisitions. The most recent was Lift Labs, a company that has developed a stabilizing spoon for people with neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinsons.

Healthcare is also a major investment area for the company’s venture arm, Google Ventures. They’ve invested in several different areas of healthcare, including insurance (Oscar), big data (Flatiron Health), and genomics (23andMe).

PAYMENTS

Google announced Android Pay almost directly after Apple announced Apple Pay. Google’s most notable payments acquisition was Softcard, a contactless NFC based mobile payments solution. originally a joint venture between AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. In exchange, the carriers have agreed to pre-install Google payment apps on their phones. However, it’s unclear whether the platform has gained any traction.Google has also invested in other areas of fintech, including digital currency, crowdfunding, and more recently insurance.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Alphabet has become directly involved in cell and internet services through projects like Project Fi, Google Fiber, and Project Loon. Google also bought satellite company Skybox Imaging and high-altitude drone company Titan Aerospace. Both are acquisitions that could have possible ramifications for providing connectivity to developing countries, without the need for expensive and logistically complex submarine or terrestrial infrastructure.

SOURCE

https://www.cbinsights.com/research-google-acquisitions?utm_source=CB+Insights+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2d8a0dbc59-TuesNL_05_03_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9dc0513989-2d8a0dbc59-87377285

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »