Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Genetics & Pharmaceutical’ Category


Biomolecular Condensates: A new approach to biology originated @MIT – Drug Discovery at DewPoint Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA gets new leaders, Ameet Nathwani, MD (ex-Sanofi, ex-Novartis) as Chief Executive Officer and Arie Belldegrun, PhD (ex-Kite Therapeutics) on R&D

Curator & Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Hooked by the science, Arie Belldegrun joins a group of influentials who believe Dewpoint may have the key to the next big thing in biotech

A new approach to biology

“The real voyage of discovery consists, not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” Marcel Proust

Starting with the study of P granules in C.elegans embryos in 2009, Tony Hyman, working with his collaborators like Frank Julicher, Cliff Brangwynne, Simon Alberti, Mike Rosen, and Rohit Pappu, began to unravel the mysteries of biomolecular condensates. These scientists realized that P granules behave like liquid droplets that form by phase separation (think of oil droplets in salad dressing) and called them condensates.

In subsequent studies, they found to their surprise that many compartments inside cells had the behavior of condensates: they are liquid-like and form by phase separation.

Inspired by the work of Tony and his colleagues, Richard Young, Phillip Sharp, and Arup Chakraborty at MIT applied these approaches to the study of gene expression, similarly shedding light on many important questions in gene control.

a video thumbnail

 

Press releases and Dewpoint in the news

 
  • Dewpoint Therapeutics Appoints Ameet Nathwani as Chief Executive Officer

    Dewpoint

  • New York Times interviews Rick Young and Amy Gladfelter on the role of condensate “droplets” in COVID-19

    New York Times

  • Dewpoint Therapeutics raises $77 million to go after ‘undruggable’ diseases

    Boston Globe

  • Hooked by the science, Arie Belldegrun joins a group of influentials who believe Dewpoint may have the key to the next big thing in biotech

    Endpoint News

  • Dewpoint Therapeutics to put ‘pedal to the metal’ with $77M round

    FierceBiotech

  • Dewpoint Therapeutics Raises $77M Series B Financing to Advance the Development of Drugs That Target Biomolecular Condensates

    Dewpoint

  • 21 biotech startups that are set to take off, according to top VCs

    Business Insider

  • Proteins — and labs — coming together to prevent Rett Syndrome

    Whitehead Institute

  • Dewpoint Therapeutics Collaborates with Merck to Evaluate Novel Approach for the Treatment of HIV

    Dewpoint

  • Discovery of how cancer drugs find their targets could lead to a new toolset for drug development

    Whitehead Institute

SOURCE

https://dewpointx.com/news/

Other related article published in this Online Open Access Scientific Journal include: 

Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/10/04/economic-potential-of-a-drug-invention-prof-zelig-eshhar-weitzman-institute-registered-the-patent-versus-a-cancer-drug-in-clinical-trials-car-t-as-a-case-in-point-developed-by-kite-pharma-unde/

Read Full Post »


The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020: Emmanuelle Charpentier & Jennifer A. Doudna

Reporters: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D. and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 11/12/2020

Harvard’s Jack Szostak congratulates former advisee Jennifer Doudna

It was a toast from one Nobel laureate to another, sweetened by the pride of a mentor to a prized student.

When Jennifer Doudna Ph.D. ’89 was honored on Wednesday with the Nobel Prize in chemistry for her work on the CRISPR gene-editing technique, she became the second person to gain such an honor from the lab of Jack Szostak, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, and professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Szostak, who won the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 2009 for work on how telomere caps keep the body’s chromosomes from breaking down, advised Doudna’s doctoral work on RNA and on Wednesday raised a glass in honor of Doudna, now at the University of California, Berkeley. In a tweet, Szostak expressed his delight at seeing someone he once guided through her early scientific steps soar to science’s highest reaches:

Doudna received the prize together with Emmanuelle Charpentier, for their work discovering and developing CRISPR as a precise gene-editing tool. In just the eight years since the pair announced their discovery the use of the technique has rapidly spread to a host of fields, allowing researchers to alter the code of life and develop resistant crops, new medical therapies, and even anticipate curing inherited diseases.

 

UPDADTED on 11/2/2020

 

Announcement of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

Live webcast from the press conference where the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences will announce the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020.

 

 

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020 to

Emmanuelle Charpentier
Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens, Berlin, Germany

Jennifer A. Doudna
University of California, Berkeley, USA

“for the development of a method for genome editing”

Genetic scissors: a tool for rewriting the code of life

Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna have discovered one of gene technology’s sharpest tools: the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors. Using these, researchers can change the DNA of animals, plants and microorganisms with extremely high precision. This technology has had a revolutionary impact on the life sciences, is contributing to new cancer therapies and may make the dream of curing inherited diseases come true.

Researchers need to modify genes in cells if they are to find out about life’s inner workings. This used to be time-consuming, difficult and sometimes impossible work. Using the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors, it is now possible to change the code of life over the course of a few weeks.

“There is enormous power in this genetic tool, which affects us all. It has not only revolutionised basic science, but also resulted in innovative crops and will lead to ground-breaking new medical treatments,” says Claes Gustafsson, chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.

As so often in science, the discovery of these genetic scissors was unexpected. During Emmanuelle Charpentier’s studies of Streptococcus pyogenes, one of the bacteria that cause the most harm to humanity, she discovered a previously unknown molecule, tracrRNA. Her work showed that tracrRNA is part of bacteria’s ancient immune system, CRISPR/Cas, that disarms viruses by cleaving their DNA.

Charpentier published her discovery in 2011. The same year, she initiated a collaboration with Jennifer Doudna, an experienced biochemist with vast knowledge of RNA. Together, they succeeded in recreating the bacteria’s genetic scissors in a test tube and simplifying the scissors’ molecular components so they were easier to use.

In an epoch-making experiment, they then reprogrammed the genetic scissors. In their natural form, the scissors recognise DNA from viruses, but Charpentier and Doudna proved that they could be controlled so that they can cut any DNA molecule at a predetermined site. Where the DNA is cut it is then easy to rewrite the code of life.

Since Charpentier and Doudna discovered the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors in 2012 their use has exploded. This tool has contributed to many important discoveries in basic research, and plant researchers have been able to develop crops that withstand mould, pests and drought. In medicine, clinical trials of new cancer therapies are underway, and the dream of being able to cure inherited diseases is about to come true. These genetic scissors have taken the life sciences into a new epoch and, in many ways, are bringing the greatest benefit to humankind.

Illustrations

The illustrations are free to use for non-commercial purposes. Attribute ”© Johan Jarnestad/The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences”

Illustration: Using the genetic scissors (pdf)
Illustration: Streptococcus’ natural immune system against viruses:CRISPR/Cas9 pdf)
Illustration: CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors (pdf)

Read more about this year’s prize

Popular information: Genetic scissors: a tool for rewriting the code of life (pdf)
Scientific Background: A tool for genome editing (pdf)

Emmanuelle Charpentier, born 1968 in Juvisy-sur-Orge, France. Ph.D. 1995 from Institut Pasteur, Paris, France. Director of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens, Berlin, Germany.

Jennifer A. Doudna, born 1964 in Washington, D.C, USA. Ph.D. 1989 from Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, USA and Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

SOURCE

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/press-release/

 

Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded to scientists who discovered CRISPR gene editing tool for ‘rewriting the code of life’

(CNN)The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna for the development of a method for genome editing.

They discovered one of gene technology’s sharpest tools: the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors. Using these, researchers can change the DNA of animals, plants and micro-organisms with extremely high precision.
Before announcing the winners on Wednesday, Göran K. Hansson, secretary-general for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, said that this year’s prize was about “rewriting the code of life.”
The American biochemist Jennifer A. Doudna (left) and French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, pictured together in 2016.
 
The CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing tools have revolutionized the molecular life sciences, brought new opportunities for plant breeding, are contributing to innovative cancer therapies and may make the dream of curing inherited diseases come true, according to a press release from the Nobel committee.
 
 
There have also been some ethical concerns around the CRISPR technology, however.
Charpentier, a French microbiologist, and Doudna, an American biochemist, are the first women to jointly win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and the sixth and seventh women to win the chemistry prize.
close dialog

 

Jennifer Doudna wins 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry

 

First Day in a Nobel Life: Jennifer Doudna

12,365 views
Oct 7, 2020
 
Scenes from day that UC Berkeley Professor Jennifer Doudna won the Nobel Prize For the full story, visit: https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/10/07/… University of California, Berkeley, biochemist Jennifer Doudna today won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, sharing it with colleague Emmanuelle Charpentier for the co-development of CRISPR-Cas9, a genome editing breakthrough that has revolutionized biomedicine. CRISPR-Cas9 allows scientists to rewrite DNA — the code of life — in any organism, including human cells, with unprecedented efficiency and precision. The groundbreaking power and versatility of CRISPR-Cas9 has opened up new and wide-ranging possibilities across biology, agriculture and medicine, including the treatment of thousands of intractable diseases. Doudna and Charpentier, director of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, will share the 10 million Swedish krona (more than $1 million) prize. “This great honor recognizes the history of CRISPR and the collaborative story of harnessing it into a profoundly powerful engineering technology that gives new hope and possibility to our society,” said Doudna. “What started as a curiosity‐driven, fundamental discovery project has now become the breakthrough strategy used by countless researchers working to help improve the human condition. I encourage continued support of fundamental science as well as public discourse about the ethical uses and responsible regulation of CRISPR technology.” Video by Clare Major & Roxanne Makasdjian
SOURCE

 

Jennifer Doudna wins 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry

 

Jennifer Doudna in the PBS Movie CRISPR

Our critically-acclaimed documentary HUMAN NATURE is now streaming on NETFLIX. #HumanNatureFilm. Find out more about the film on our website.

 

Other Articles on the Nobel Prize in this Open Access Journal Include:

2020 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for Hepatitis C Discovery goes to British scientist Michael Houghton and US researchers Harvey Alter and Charles Rice

CONTAGIOUS – About Viruses, Pandemics and Nobel Prizes at the Nobel Prize Museum, Stockholm, Sweden 

AACR Congratulates Dr. William G. Kaelin Jr., Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Dr. Gregg L. Semenza on 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for contributions to Cancer Immunotherapy to James P. Allison, Ph.D., of the University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Dr. Allison shares the prize with Tasuku Honjo, M.D., Ph.D., of Kyoto University Institute, Japan

2017 Nobel prize in chemistry given to Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank, and Richard Henderson  for developing cryo-electron microscopy

2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded for development of molecular machines, the world’s smallest mechanical devices, the winners: Jean-Pierre Sauvage, J. Fraser Stoddart and Bernard L. Feringa

Correspondence on Leadership in Genomics and other Gene Curations: Dr. Williams with Dr. Lev-Ari

Programming life: An interview with Jennifer Doudna by Michael Chui, a partner of the McKinsey Global Institute

Read Full Post »


Double Mutant PI3KA Found to Lead to Higher Oncogenic Signaling in Cancer Cells

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

PIK3CA (Phosphatidylinsitol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) 3-kinase catalytic subunit α) is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in various tumor types ([1] and http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/cosmic). Oncogenic mutations leading to the overactivation of PIK3CA, especially in context in of inactivating PTEN mutations, result in overtly high signaling activity and associated with the malignant phenotype.

In a Perspective article (Double trouble for cancer gene: Double mutations in an oncogene enhance tumor growth) in the journal Science[2], Dr. Alex Toker discusses the recent results of Vasan et al. in the same issue of Science[3] on the finding that double mutations in the same allele of PIK3CA are more frequent in cancer genomes than previously identified and these double mutations lead to increased PI3K pathway activation, increased tumor growth, and increased sensitivity to PI3K inhibitors in human breast cancer.

 

 

From Dr. Melvin Crasto blog NewDrugApprovals.org

Alpelisib: PIK3CA inhibitor:

Alpelisib: New PIK3CA inhibitor approved for HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer

 

FDA approves first PI3K inhibitor for breast cancer

syn https://newdrugapprovals.org/2018/06/25/alpelisib-byl-719/

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Piqray (alpelisib) tablets, to be used in combination with the FDA-approved endocrine therapy fulvestrant, to treat postmenopausal women, and men, with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer (as detected by an FDA-approved test) following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen.

The FDA also approved the companion diagnostic test, therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR Kit, to detect the PIK3CA mutation in a tissue and/or a liquid biopsy. Patients who are negative by

May 24, 2019

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Piqray (alpelisib) tablets, to be used in combination with the FDA-approved endocrine therapy fulvestrant, to treat postmenopausal women, and men, with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer (as detected by an FDA-approved test) following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen.

The FDA also approved the companion diagnostic test, therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR Kit, to detect the PIK3CA mutation in a tissue and/or a liquid biopsy. Patients who are negative by the therascreen test using the liquid biopsy should undergo tumor biopsy for PIK3CA mutation testing.

“Piqray is the first PI3K inhibitor to demonstrate a clinically meaningful benefit in treating patients with this type of breast cancer. The ability to target treatment to a patient’s specific genetic mutation or biomarker is becoming increasingly common in cancer treatment, and companion diagnostic tests assist oncologists in selecting patients who may benefit from these targeted treatments,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “For this approval, we employed some of our newer regulatory tools to streamline reviews without compromising the quality of our assessment. This drug is the first novel drug approved under the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program. We also used the updated Assessment Aid, a multidisciplinary review template that helps focus our written review on critical thinking and consistency and reduces time spent on administrative tasks.”

Metastatic breast cancer is breast cancer that has spread beyond the breast to other organs in the body (most often the bones, lungs, liver or brain). When breast cancer is hormone-receptor positive, patients may be treated with anti-hormonal treatment (also called endocrine therapy), alone or in combination with other medicines, or chemotherapy.

The efficacy of Piqray was studied in the SOLAR-1 trial, a randomized trial of 572 postmenopausal women and men with HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose cancer had progressed while on or after receiving an aromatase inhibitor. Results from the trial showed the addition of Piqray to fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression- free survival (median of 11 months vs. 5.7 months) in patients whose tumors had a PIK3CA mutation.

Common side effects of Piqray are high blood sugar levels, increase in creatinine, diarrhea, rash, decrease in lymphocyte count in the blood, elevated liver enzymes, nausea, fatigue, low red blood cell count, increase in lipase (enzymes released by the pancreas), decreased appetite, stomatitis, vomiting, weight loss, low calcium levels, aPTT prolonged (blood clotting taking longer to occur than it should), and hair loss.

Health care professionals are advised to monitor patients taking Piqray for severe hypersensitivity reactions (intolerance). Patients are warned of potentially severe skin reactions (rashes that may result in peeling and blistering of skin or mucous membranes like the lips and gums). Health care professionals are advised not to initiate treatment in patients with a history of severe skin reactions such as Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, erythema multiforme, or toxic epidermal necrolysis. Patients on Piqray have reported severe hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), and the safety of Piqray in patients with Type 1 or uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes has not been established. Before initiating treatment with Piqray, health care professionals are advised to check fasting glucose and HbA1c, and to optimize glycemic control. Patients should be monitored for pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (inflammation of lung tissue) and diarrhea during treatment. Piqray must be dispensed with a patient Medication Guide that describes important information about the drug’s uses and risks.

Piqray is the first new drug application (NDA) for a new molecular entity approved under the Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) pilot program, which permits the FDA to begin analyzing key efficacy and safety datasets prior to the official submission of an application, allowing the review team to begin their review and communicate with the applicant earlier. Piqray also used the updated Assessment Aid (AAid), a multidisciplinary review template intended to focus the FDA’s written review on critical thinking and consistency and reduce time spent on administrative tasks. With these two pilot programs, today’s approval of Piqray comes approximately three months ahead of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI deadline of August 18, 2019.

The FDA granted this application Priority Review designation. The FDA granted approval of Piqray to Novartis. The FDA granted approval of the therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR Kit to QIAGEN Manchester, Ltd.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-pi3k-inhibitor-breast-cancer?utm_campaign=052419_PR_FDA%20approves%20first%20PI3K%20inhibitor%20for%20breast%20cancer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

 

Alpelisib

(2S)-1-N-[4-methyl-5-[2-(1,1,1-trifluoro-2-methylpropan-2-yl)pyridin-4-yl]-1,3-thiazol-2-yl]pyrrolidine-1,2-dicarboxamide

PDT PAT WO 2010/029082

CHEMICAL NAMES: Alpelisib; CAS 1217486-61-7; BYL-719; BYL719; UNII-08W5N2C97Q; BYL 719
MOLECULAR FORMULA: C19H22F3N5O2S
MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 441.473 g/mol
  1. alpelisib
  2. 1217486-61-7
  3. BYL-719
  4. BYL719
  5. UNII-08W5N2C97Q
  6. BYL 719
  7. Alpelisib (BYL719)
  8. (S)-N1-(4-Methyl-5-(2-(1,1,1-trifluoro-2-methylpropan-2-yl)pyridin-4-yl)thiazol-2-yl)pyrrolidine-1,2-dicarboxamide
  9. NVP-BYL719

Alpelisib is an orally bioavailable phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor with potential antineoplastic activity. Alpelisib specifically inhibits PI3K in the PI3K/AKT kinase (or protein kinase B) signaling pathway, thereby inhibiting the activation of the PI3K signaling pathway. This may result in inhibition of tumor cell growth and survival in susceptible tumor cell populations. Activation of the PI3K signaling pathway is frequently associated with tumorigenesis. Dysregulated PI3K signaling may contribute to tumor resistance to a variety of antineoplastic agents.

Alpelisib has been used in trials studying the treatment and basic science of Neoplasms, Solid Tumors, BREAST CANCER, 3rd Line GIST, and Rectal Cancer, among others.

 

SYN 2

POLYMORPHS

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2012175522A1/en

(S)-pyrrolidine-l,2-dicarboxylic acid 2-amide l-(4-methyl-5-[2-(2,2,2-trifluoro-l,l- dimethyl-ethyl)-pyridin-4-yl]-thiazol-2-yl)-amidei hereafter referred to as compound I,

is an alpha-selective phosphatidylinositol 3 -kinase (PI3K) inhibitor. Compound I was originally described in WO 2010/029082, wherein the synthesis of its free base form was described. There is a need for additional solid forms of compound I, for use in drug substance and drug product development. It has been found that new solid forms of compound I can be prepared as one or more polymorph forms, including solvate forms. These polymorph forms exhibit new physical properties that may be exploited in order to obtain new pharmacological properties, and that may be utilized in drug substance and drug product development. Summary of the Invention

In one aspect, provided herein is a crystalline form of the compound of formula I, or a solvate of the crystalline form of the compound of formula I, or a salt of the crystalline form of the compound of formula I, or a solvate of a salt of the crystalline form of the compound of formula I. In one embodiment, the crystalline form of the compound of formula I has the polymorph form SA, SB, Sc, or SD.

In another aspect, provided herein is a pharmaceutical composition comprising a crystalline compound of formula I. In one embodiment of the pharmaceutical composition, the crystalline compound of formula I has the polymorph form SA, SB,Sc, or So.

In another aspect, provided herein is a method for the treatment of disorders mediated by PI3K, comprising administering to a patient in need of such treatment an effective amount of a crystalline compound of formula I, particularly SA, SB, SC,or SD .

In yet another aspect, provided herein is the use of a crystalline compound of formula I, particularly SA, SB, SC, or SD, for the preparation of a medicament for the treatment of disorders mediated by PI3K.

 

Source: https://newdrugapprovals.org/?s=alpelisib&submit=

 

Pharmacology and Toxicology from drugbank.ca

Indication

Alpelisib is indicated in combination with fulvestrant to treat postmenopausal women, and men, with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Label This cancer must be hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, and PIK3CA­ mutated.Label The cancer must be detected by an FDA-approved test following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen.Label

Associated Conditions

Contraindications & Blackbox Warnings

Learn about our commercial Contraindications & Blackbox Warnings data.

LEARN MORE

 

Pharmacodynamics

Alpelisib does not prolong the QTcF interval.Label Patients taking alpelisib experience a dose dependent benefit from treatment with a 51% advantage of a 200mg daily dose over a 100mg dose and a 22% advantage of 300mg once daily over 150mg twice daily.6 This suggests patients requiring a lower dose may benefit from twice daily dosing.6

Mechanism of action

Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase-α (PI3Kα) is responsible for cell proliferation in response to growth factor-tyrosine kinase pathway activation.3 In some cancers PI3Kα’s p110α catalytic subunit is mutated making it hyperactive.3 Alpelisib inhibits (PI3K), with the highest specificity for PI3Kα.Label

TARGET ACTIONS ORGANISM
APhosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha isoform inhibitor Humans

Absorption

Alpelisib reached a peak concentration in plasma of 1320±912ng/mL after 2 hours.4 Alpelisib has an AUClast of 11,100±3760h ng/mL and an AUCINF of 11,100±3770h ng/mL.4 A large, high fat meal increases the AUC by 73% and Cmax by 84% while a small, low fat meal increases the AUC by 77% and Cmax by 145%.Label

Volume of distribution

The apparent volume of distribution at steady state is 114L.Label

Protein binding

Alpelisib is 89% protein bound.Label

Metabolism

Alpelisib is metabolized by hydrolysis reactions to form the primary metabolite.Label It is also metabolized by CYP3A4.Label The full metabolism of Alpelisib has yet to be determined but a series of reactions have been proposed.4,5 The main metabolic reaction is the substitution of an amine group on alpelisib for a hydroxyl group to form a metabolite known as M44,5 or BZG791.Label Alpelisib can also be glucuronidated to form the M1 and M12 metabolites.4,5

Hover over products below to view reaction partners

Route of elimination

36% of an oral dose is eliminated as unchanged drug in the feces and 32% as the primary metabolite BZG791 in the feces.Label 2% of an oral dose is eliminated in the urine as unchanged drug and 7.1% as the primary metabolite BZG791.Label In total 81% of an oral dose is eliminated in the feces and 14% is eliminated in the urine.Label

Half-life

The mean half life of alprelisib is 8 to 9 hours.Label

Clearance

The mean apparent oral clearance was 39.0L/h.4 The predicted clearance is 9.2L/hr under fed conditions.Label

Adverse Effects

Learn about our commercial Adverse Effects data.

LEARN MORE

 

Toxicity

LD50 and Overdose

Patients experiencing an overdose may present with hyperglycemia, nausea, asthenia, and rash.Label There is no antidote for an overdose of alpelisib so patients should be treated symptomatically.Label Data regarding an LD50 is not readily available.MSDS In clinical trials, patients were given doses of up to 450mg once daily.Label

Pregnancy, Lactation, and Fertility

Following administration in rats and rabbits during organogenesis, adverse effects on the reproductive system, such as embryo-fetal mortality, reduced fetal weights, and increased incidences of fetal malformations, were observed.Label Based on these findings of animals studies and its mechanism of action, it is proposed that alpelisib may cause embryo-fetal toxicity when administered to pregnant patients.Label There is no data available regarding the presence of alpelisib in breast milk so breast feeding mothers are advised not to breastfeed while taking this medication and for 1 week after their last dose.Label Based on animal studies, alpelisib may impair fertility of humans.Label

Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity

Studies of carcinogenicity have yet to be performed.Label Alpelisib has not been found to be mutagenic in the Ames test.Label It is not aneugenic, clastogenic, or genotoxic in further assays.Label

Affected organisms

Not Available

Pathways

Not Available

Pharmacogenomic Effects/ADRs 

 

Not Available

 

Source: https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB12015

References

  1. Yuan TL, Cantley LC: PI3K pathway alterations in cancer: variations on a theme. Oncogene 2008, 27(41):5497-5510.
  2. Toker A: Double trouble for cancer gene. Science 2019, 366(6466):685-686.
  3. Vasan N, Razavi P, Johnson JL, Shao H, Shah H, Antoine A, Ladewig E, Gorelick A, Lin TY, Toska E et al: Double PIK3CA mutations in cis increase oncogenicity and sensitivity to PI3Kalpha inhibitors. Science 2019, 366(6466):714-723.

 

 

Read Full Post »


Innate Immune Genes and Two Nasal Epithelial Cell Types: Expression of SARS-CoV-2 Entry Factors – COVID19 Cell Atlas

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes

Abstract

We investigated SARS-CoV-2 potential tropism by surveying expression of viral entry-associated genes in single-cell RNA-sequencing data from multiple tissues from healthy human donors. We co-detected these transcripts in specific respiratory, corneal and intestinal epithelial cells, potentially explaining the high efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. These genes are co-expressed in nasal epithelial cells with genes involved in innate immunity, highlighting the cells’ potential role in initial viral infection, spread and clearance. The study offers a useful resource for further lines of inquiry with valuable clinical samples from COVID-19 patients and we provide our data in a comprehensive, open and user-friendly fashion at www.covid19cellatlas.org.

To further characterize specific epithelial cell types expressing ACE2, we evaluated ACE2 expression within the lung and airway epithelium. We found that, despite a low level of expression overall, ACE2 was expressed in multiple epithelial cell types across the airway, as well as in alveolar epithelial type II cells in the parenchyma, consistently with previous studies9,10,11. Notably, nasal epithelial cells, including two previously described clusters of goblet cells and one cluster of ciliated cells, show the highest expression among all investigated cells in the respiratory tree (Fig. 1b). We confirmed enriched ACE2 expression in nasal epithelial cells in an independent scRNA-seq study that includes nasal brushings and biopsies. The results were consistent; we found the highest expression of ACE2 in nasal secretory cells (equivalent to the two goblet cell clusters in the previous dataset) and ciliated cells (Fig. 1b).

In addition, scRNA-seq data from an in vitro epithelial regeneration system from nasal epithelial cells corroborated the expression of ACE2 in goblet/secretory cells and ciliated cells in air–liquid interface cultures (Extended Data Fig. 1). Notably, the differentiating cells in the air–liquid interface acquire progressively more ACE2 (Extended Data Fig. 1). The results also suggest that this in vitro culture system may be biologically relevant for the study of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis.

Coronavirus Entry Genes Highly Expressed in Two Nasal Epithelial Cell Types

Apr 23, 2020

staff reporter

Save for later

TEM of SARS-CoV-2 particles; Credit: NIAID-RML

This story has been updated to include information on a related study appearing in Cell.

NEW YORK – Two types of cells inside the nose express high levels of the genes encoding proteins the SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter cells, suggesting they are the likely entry points for the virus.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, uses its spike protein to bind to cellular receptors in the human body. The virus relies on the ACE2 receptor protein and the TMPRSS2 protease to enter cells, but which cells are initially infected has been unclear.

An international team of researchers used single-cell RNA sequencing datasets put together by the Human Cell Atlas consortium to search for cell types that express both the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 genes. As they reported in Nature Medicine Thursday, they found a number of cells in different organs express the genes encoding these proteins, but they homed in on cells of the respiratory system, especially goblet cells and ciliated cells in the nose.

“Mucus-producing goblet cells and ciliated cells in the nose had the highest levels of both these [genes], of all cells in the airways,” first author Waradon Sungnak from the Wellcome Sanger Institute said in a statement. “This makes these cells the most likely initial infection route for the virus.”

Using the Human Cell Atlas dataset, Sungnak and his colleagues analyzed ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression in a range of tissues, including not only respiratory tissue — previous analyses using immunohistochemistry had detected both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the nasal and bronchial epithelium — but also tissue from the eyes, digestive tract, muscle, and more.

ACE2 gene expression was generally low across the datasets analyzed, while TMPRSS2 was more broadly expressed, the researchers found. This suggested that ACE2 expression might be the limiting factor for viral entry in initial infections.

However, ACE2 was expressed in a number of epithelial cell types of respiratory tissues, and its expression was particularly high among goblet cells and ciliated cells of the nose. The researchers confirmed this finding using data from two other scRNA-seq studies.

Other genes often co-expressed alongside ACE2 in the respiratory system included ones involved in carbohydrate metabolism — possibly due to their role in goblet cell mucin synthesis — and those involved in innate and antiviral immune functions.

The ACE2 and TMPRSS2 genes were also expressed outside of the respiratory system, including by cells of the cornea and the lining of the intestine, which the researchers noted is in line with some clinical reports suggesting fecal shedding of the virus.

Where these viral entry receptor genes are expressed in the respiratory system could influence how transmissible a virus is. The researchers compared the tissue expression patterns of these viral receptor genes to those of receptor genes used by other coronaviruses and influenza viruses. The receptors used by highly infectious viruses like influenza were expressed more in the upper airway, while receptors for less infectious viruses like MERSCoV were expressed in the lower airway. This indicated to the researchers that the spatial distribution of the viral receptors may influence how transmissible a virus is.

“This is the first time these particular cells in the nose have been associated with COVID-19,” study co-author Martijn Nawijn from the University Medical Center Groningen and the HCA Lung Biological Network said in a statement. “The location of these cells on the surface of the inside of the nose make them highly accessible to the virus, and also may assist with transmission to other people.”

Another study that appeared as a preprint at Cell also used single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets from humans, nonhuman primates, and mice to examine where cells expressing both the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 genes are located. Those researchers, led by the Broad Institute’s Jose Ordovas-Montanes, found both genes were expressed among type II pneumocytes and ileal absorptive enterocytes as well as among nasal goblet secretory cells.

SOURCE

https://www.genomeweb.com/infectious-disease/coronavirus-entry-genes-highly-expressed-two-nasal-epithelial-cell-types?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GWDN%20Thurs%20PM%202020-04-23&utm_term=GW%20Daily%20News%20Bulletin#.XqIbG1NKgdU

SOURCE for Original Research Study 

Sungnak, W., Huang, N., Bécavin, C. et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0868-6

Download citation

Read Full Post »


Ethics Behind Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: A Webinar by Laura Carfang of survivingbreastcancer.org

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

The following are Notes from a Webinar sponsored by survivingbreastcancer.org  on March 12,2020.

The webinar started with a brief introduction of attendees , most who are breast cancer survivors.  Survivingbreastcancer.org is an organization committed to supplying women affected with breast cancer up to date information, including podcasts, webinars, and information for treatment, care, and finding support and support groups.

Some of the comments of survivors:

  • being strong
  • making sure to not feel overwhelmed on initial diagnosis
  • get good information
  • sometimes patients have to know to ask for genetic testing as physicians may not offer it

Laura Carfang discussed her study results presented at  a bioethics conference in Clearwater, FL   on issues driving breast cancer patient’s  as well as at-risk women’s decision making process for genetic testing.  The study was a phenomenological study in order to determine, through personal lived experiences, what are pivotal choices to make genetic testing decisions in order to improve clinical practice.

The research involved in depth interviews with 6 breast cancer patients (all women) who had undergone breast cancer genetic testing.

Main themes coming from the interviews

  • information informing decisions before diagnosis:  they did not have an in depth knowledge of cancer or genetics or their inherent risk before the diagnosis.
  • these are my genes and I should own it: another common theme among women who were just diagnosed and contemplating whether or not to have genetic testing
  • information contributing to decision making after diagnosis: women wanted the option, and they wanted to know if they carry certain genetic mutations and how it would guide their own personal decision to choose the therapy they are most comfortable with and gives them the best chance to treat their cancer (the decision and choice is very personal)
  • communicating to family members and children was difficult for the individual affected;  women found that there were so many ramifications about talking with family members (how do I tell children, do family members really empathize with what I am going through).  Once women were tested they felt a great strain because they now were more concerned with who in their family (daughters) were at risk versus when they first get the diagnosis the bigger concern was obtaining information.
  • Decision making to undergo genetic testing not always linear but a nonlinear process where women went from wanting to get tested for the information to not wanting to get tested for reasons surrounding negative concerns surrounding knowing results (discrimination based on results, fear of telling family members)
  • Complex decision making involves a shift or alteration in emotion
  • The Mayo Clinic has come out with full support of genetic testing and offer to any patient.

Additional resources discussed was a book by Leslie Ferris Yerger “Probably Benign” which discusses misdiagnoses especially when a test comes back as “probably benign” and how she found it was not.

 

for more information on further Podcasts and to sign up for newsletters please go to https://www.survivingbreastcancer.org/

and @SBC_org

More articles on this Online Open Access Journal on Cancer and Bioethics Include:

Ethical Concerns in Personalized Medicine: BRCA1/2 Testing in Minors and Communication of Breast Cancer Risk

Tweets and Re-Tweets by @Pharma_BI ‏and @AVIVA1950 at 2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Consuming Genetics: Ethical and Legal Considerations of New Technologies, Friday, May 17, 2019 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM EDT @Harvard_Law

Genomics & Ethics: DNA Fragments are Products of Nature or Patentable Genes?

Study Finds that Both Women and their Primary Care Physicians Confusion over Ovarian Cancer Symptoms May Lead to Misdiagnosis

 

Read Full Post »


Risks from Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) may be reduced by Genotyping Guidance of Cardiac Patients

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Genotyping Cardiac Patients May Reduce Risks From DAPT

-STEMI patient study reaches noninferiority mark for adverse cardiac events

In the investigational arm, all 1,242 patients were tested for CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles *2 or *3. Carriers received ticagrelor or prasugrel, while noncarriers received clopidogrel, considered to be less powerful.

No genetic testing was performed in the standard treatment arm (n=1,246), in which patients largely went on to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. Nearly all patients in both cohorts received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin.

Following primary PCI, patients went on to the P2Y12 inhibitor for at least 12 months, with drug adherence similar between the genotype-guided (84.5%) and standard groups (82.0%).

For patients with CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles in the genotype-guided arm, 38% received ticagrelor and 1% received prasugrel. The remaining 61% of patients — the noncarriers — received clopidogrel. In the control arm, 91% were treated with ticagrelor, 2% with prasugrel, and 7% with clopidogrel, according to local protocol.

Ten Berg said that prasugrel is not typically used in the Netherlands, where eight of the centers in the trial were located, but that this might change given that the drug lowered rates of ischemic events versus ticagrelor in the head-to-head ISAR REACT 5 trial, which was also presented at ESC.

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

Read Full Post »


First Cost-Effectiveness Study of Multi-Gene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Shows Moderate Cost-Effectiveness, Exposes Crucial Practice Gap

WASHINGTON (June 27, 2019) — The results of the first economic modeling study to estimate the cost-effectiveness of “multi-gene panel sequencing” (MGPS) as compared to standard-of-care, single-gene tests for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) show that the MGPS tests are moderately cost-effective but could deliver more value if patients with test results identifying actionable genetic mutations consistently received genetically guided treatments. The results of the study, which was commissioned by the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC), underline the need to align clinical practices with an era of personalized medicine in which physicians can use diagnostic tests to identify specific biological markers that inform targeted prevention and treatment plans.

The study, which was published yesterday in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, analyzed the clinical and economic value of using MGPS testing to identify patients with tumors that over-express genetic mutations that could be targeted by available therapies designed to inhibit the function of those genes — a mainstay of modern care for aNSCLC patients. Using data provided by Flatiron Health, researchers examined clinical and cost information associated with the care of 5,688 patients with aNSCLC treated between 2011 – 2016, separating them into cohorts who received MGPS tests that assess at least 30 genetic mutations at once and those who received only “single-marker genetic testing” (SMGT) of less than 30 genes.

Compared to SMGT, the MGPS testing strategy, including downstream treatment and monitoring of disease, incurred costs equal to $148,478 for each year of life that it facilitated, a level suggesting that MGPS is moderately cost-effective compared to commonly cited thresholds in the U.S., which range from $50,000 to $200,000 per life year (LY) gained.

The authors of the study point out, however, that physicians only prescribed a targeted therapy to some of the patients whose MGPS test results revealed actionable mutations. MGPS tests can only improve downstream patient outcomes if actionable results are used to put the patient on a targeted treatment regimen that is more effective than the therapy they would otherwise have been prescribed. It is therefore impossible for the cost of an MGPS test to translate into additional LYs if actionable results do not result in the selection of a targeted treatment regimen.

Although MGPS testing revealed actionable mutations in 30.1 percent of the patients in the study cohort, only 21.4 percent of patients who underwent MGPS testing received a targeted treatment.

The study’s authors calculated that if all MGPS-tested patients with actionable mutations had received a targeted therapy, MGPS testing would deliver measurably better value ($110,000 per LY gained).

“This research underlines the importance of ensuring that clinical practices keep pace with scientific progress in personalized medicine so that we can maximize the benefits of diagnostic tests that can improve patient care and make the health system more efficient by ensuring that safe and effective targeted therapies are prescribed to those patients who will benefit,” said PMC President Edward Abrahams.

The study’s authors include Dr. Lotte Steuten, Vice President and Head of Consulting, The Office of Health Economics, London, U.K., and Affiliate Associate Faculty Member, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Dr. Bernardo Goulart, Associate Faculty Member, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Dr. Neal Meropol, Vice President, Research Oncology, Flatiron Health; Dr. Daryl Pritchard, Senior Vice President, Science Policy, Personalized Medicine Coalition; and Dr. Scott Ramsey, Director, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

###

About the Personalized Medicine Coalition:

The Personalized Medicine Coalition, representing innovators, scientists, patients, providers and payers, promotes the understanding and adoption of personalized medicine concepts, services and products to benefit patients and the health system. For more information, please visit www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org.

SOURCE

From: Personalized Medicine Coalition <pmc@personalizedmedicinecoalition.org>

Reply-To: “Christopher Wells (PMC)” <cwells@personalizedmedicinecoalition.org>

Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:32 AM

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

Subject: First Cost-Effectiveness Study of MGPS in aNSCLC Shows Moderate Cost-Effectiveness, Exposes Crucial Practice Gap

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Chat with @FDA Commissioner, & Challenges in Biotech & Gene Therapy June 4 Philadelphia

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

  • taking patient concerns and voices from anecdotal to data driven system
  • talked about patient accrual hearing patient voice not only in ease of access but reporting toxicities
  • at FDA he wants to remove barriers to trial access and accrual; also talk earlier to co’s on how they should conduct a trial

Digital tech

  • software as medical device
  • regulatory path is mixed like next gen sequencing
  • wearables are concern for FDA (they need to recruit scientists who know this tech

Opioids

  • must address the crisis but in a way that does not harm cancer pain patients
  • smaller pain packs “blister packs” would be good idea

Clinical trial modernization

  • for Alzheimers disease problem is science
  • for diabetes problem is regulatory
  • different diseases calls for different trial design
  • have regulatory problems with rare diseases as can’t form control or placebo group, inhumane. for example ras tumors trials for MEK inhibitors were narrowly focused on certain ras mutants
Realizing the Promise of Gene Therapies for Patients Around the World

103ABC, Level 100

Speakers
Lots of promise, timeline is progressing faster but we need more education on use of the gene therapy
Regulatory issues: Cell and directly delivered gene based therapies have been now approved. Some challenges will be the ultrarare disease trials and how we address manufacturing issues.  Manufacturing is a big issue at CBER and scalability.  If we want to have global impact of these products we need to address the manufacturing issues
 of scalability.
Pfizer – clinical grade and scale is important.
Aventis – he knew manufacturing of biologics however gene therapy manufacturing has its separate issues and is more complicated especially for regulatory purposes for clinical grade as well as scalability.  Strategic decision: focusing on the QC on manufacturing was so important.  Had a major issue in manufacturing had to shut down and redesign the system.
Albert:  Manufacturing is the most important topic even to the investors.  Investors were really conservative especially seeing early problems but when academic centers figured out good efficacy then they investors felt better and market has exploded.  Now you can see investment into preclinical and startups but still want mature companies to focus on manufacturing.  About $10 billion investment in last 4 years.

How Early is Too Early? Valuing and De-Risking Preclinical Opportunities

109AB, Level 100

Speakers
Valuing early-stage opportunities is challenging. Modeling will often provide a false sense of accuracy but relying on comparable transactions is more art than science. With a long lead time to launch, even the most robust estimates can ultimately prove inaccurate. This interactive panel will feature venture capital investors and senior pharma and biotech executives who lead early-stage transactions as they discuss their approaches to valuing opportunities, and offer key learnings from both successful and not-so-successful experiences.
Dr. Schoenbeck, Pfizer:
  • global network of liaisons who are a dedicated team to research potential global startup partners or investments.  Pfizer has a separate team to evaluate academic laboratories.  In Most cases Pfizer does not initiate contact.  It is important to initiate the first discussion with them in order to get noticed.  Could be just a short chat or discussion on what their needs are for their portfolio.

Question: How early is too early?

Luc Marengere, TVM:  His company has early stage focus, on 1st in class molecules.  The sweet spot for their investment is a candidate selected compound, which should be 12-18 months from IND.  They will want to bring to phase II in less than 4 years for $15-17 million.  Their development model is bad for academic labs.  During this process free to talk to other partners.

Dr. Chaudhary, Biogen:  Never too early to initiate a conversation and sometimes that conversation has lasted 3+ years before a decision.  They like build to buy models, will do convertible note deals, candidate compound selection should be entering in GLP/Tox phase (sweet spot)

Merck: have MRL Venture Fund for pre series A funding.  Also reiterated it is never too early to have that initial discussion.  It will not put you in a throw away bin.  They will have suggestions and never like to throw out good ideas.

Michael Hostetler: Set expectations carefully ; data should be validated by a CRO.  If have a platform, they will look at the team first to see if strong then will look at the platform to see how robust it is.

All noted that you should be completely honest at this phase.  Do not overstate your results or data or overhype your compound(s).  Show them everything and don’t have a bias toward compounds you think are the best in your portfolio.  Sometimes the least developed are the ones they are interested in.  Also one firm may reject you however you may fit in others portfolios better so have a broad range of conversations with multiple players.

 

 

Read Full Post »


Tweets and Re-Tweets by @Pharma_BI ‏and @AVIVA1950 at 2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Consuming Genetics: Ethical and Legal Considerations of New Technologies, Friday, May 17, 2019 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM EDT @Harvard_Law

 

Tweets by @Pharma_BI ‏and @AVIVA1950

  1.   Retweeted

    AMAZING conference on Genomics and Ethics

  2. Amazing Conference LIVE 2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: : and Considerations of New Technologies, Friday, May 17, 2019 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM EDT via

  3. Concluding remark cited by ⁦⁩ ⁦ Great Panel on the Impact of Genetic Information new conceptual approach prioritizing parental autonomy with restriction built in

  4. ⁩ ⁦ NIPT test for fetal sex blood type Trisonomy Whole Genome-wide analysis routinization of procedure READY at Birth impact intrafamilial discrimination babySeqProject G2P ⁦

  5. Leila Jamal, NIAID Pre- Test Genetic Counseling – information and testing need, indication for testing Post-Test Informational Burden low vs high: Likely pathogenic, Pathogenic benign – natural history data potentially high impact

  6. Leila Jamal, NIAID benefit the patient, positive autonomy, benefiesence – how potentially impactful is the Test Information Nondirectiveness – Why? distance from eugenics + abortion politics persons and patient autonomy

  7. Leila Jamal, NIAID Genetic and Genomics Testing: Prenata, Pediatric, Vancer, other: Cardiology, Neurology, Hematology, Infectious diseases, pharmaco genomics, DTC, Ancestry

  8. Emily Qian, Genetic Counselor, Veritas Genetics – Physician-Mediated Elective Whole Genome Sequencing Tests: Impacts on Informed Consent DTC Physician-initiated Genetic Testing Physician-initiated DTC Informed consent is a process

  9. ⁩ ⁦ Recommendation based on best evidence guidelines available

  10. Natalie RamGenetic Genealogy and the Problem of Familial Forensic Identification Familial Forensic Identification – Privacy for information held by Telephone companies Involuntarily Identification by genetic data genetic markers

  11. Natalie Ram, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law – Genetic Genealogy and the Problem of Familial Forensic Identification Opt in to share genetic data on the platforms opt in national DB

  12. Natalie Ram, Univ of Baltimore School of Law Genetic relatedness is stickier than social relations Voluntary sharing of genetic information – no other party can protect genetic information of any person, thu, if shared voluntarily

  13. ⁩ ⁦ gene APO-E e-2, e-3, e-4 If e-4 variant risk AD is 40% 23andMe since 2011 rest for e-4 unlock result # copies of e-4 are present little clinical value post diagnosis recommendation do not depend on e-4

  14. Jonathan Kahn, Precision Medicine and the Resurgence of Race in Genomic Medicineprecision medicine – classification of individuals into subpopulations that differ in their susceptability to a particular disease

  15. Kif Augustine-Adams, BYU Law School – Generational Failures of Law and Ethics: Rape, Mormon Orthodoxy, the Revelatory Power of Ancestry DNAComplex Sorrows: Anscestry DNA – 20 Millions records. Complete anonymity and privacy collapsed

  16. Regulating Consumer Genetic Technologies Conclusions: DTC policies are over the place, FDA poised to regulate Big Data, Human Genomics Somatic vs Germline are key distinctions NY Dept Health 3rd Party Certification in Genomics

  17. Scott Schweikart, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association and Legal Editor, AMA Journal of Ethics – Human Gene Editing: An Ethical Analysis and Arguments for Regulatory Guidance National and Global Levels

  18. Catherine M. Sharkey, The Emerging Role of the FDA Genetic predisposition – BRCA I & II approved Testing Pharmaco-genetic Test authorization incorrect interpretation, incorrect action based on results False positive and False negative

  19. Scott Schweikart, AMA Ethical concernsTechnologiesCRISPR-Cas-9 Somatic vs GermlineAMA: Individual liberty (1) Autonomy & Gene Editing (2) Non-maleficence and Beneficence (3) Social Justice Treatment vs Enhancement National Regulations

  20. Patricia J. Zettler, Regulators can do: Promote self regulations vs restrict community labs Drugs: premarket approval by FDA 11/2017: any use of CRISPR is subjected to regulation Bio hacking materials are distributed outside channels

  21. Patricia J. Zettler, FDA agency – regulation can’t reach everything, Not seen wide range abuse, FDA encourage learning and information dissemination and Educate

  22. Maxwell J. Mehlman, Governing Non-Traditional Biology On-Line gene editing equipment CRISPR-Cas9 – IGEM – international Competition in community of Scientists Biological weapons – issues of Prior Art impeding patentability may come up

  23. Maxwell J. Mehlman Harm to subjects Biosafety Safety Phase I Gene drives in Human?? – Human gene editing: “Nanoparticle and liposomal delivery” and “Allelic drive using CRISPR”

  24. ⁩ ⁦ regulatory options: liabilities, legal requirements industry restrictions on access to material community labs, NTB IRBs self-governing bodies FBI surveillance

  25. Barbara J. Evans Is it FDA duty on Cosmetic enhancement Genome is Software, US is not good in regulating software The Harm Principle, Legal Paternalism benevolent vs non-benevolent Legal Moralism – no body is harmed but it’s just wrong

  26. Barbara J. Evans Multiple Agencies: In the 80’s on Future Products of Biotechnology: EPA, FDA, USDA, OSHA, CPSC, NIH, NEPA, ESA, APA Skepticism that compulsory regulation for compliance with norms

  27. Barbara J. Evans Regulatory Challenges Citizen Science and DIY Bio democratization of science and medicine narrative, new frontiers for institutional science narrative nostalgia narrative, political narrative: “hacker” portrayals

  28. in Preparing for Future Products of Biotechnology, NAS

  29. Seema Mohapatra, AAbolishing the Myth of “Anonymous” Gamete Donation in the Age of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic TestingAnonymous sperm donation Sell sperm $30 – $130 per sample – industry is thriving due to donor anonymity last 3 years,

  30. Seema Mohapatra, 2.6 million Ancestry DNA only to keep donor Anonymity Donor-Conceived Individuals at age 18 can identified the DonorLegal landscape ART – no federal laws regarding UT and WA [medical disclosure about the donor

  31. Nita Farahany, Professor Law, Philosophy Duke Law School need new Framework if anonymity is dead, most uses are diverted for medicinePrivacy is improving, ACA – protects from preexisting conditionsIndividual costs vs societal benefits

  32. Liza Vertinsky Courts: Pushing the boundaries: (1) Privacy (2) publicity rights (3) property (commodificationPresidential Figures: Infidelity gene, gambling geneLegal pathways Junk DNA Law enforcement databasesAlternative legal framing

  33. Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Data coming into Academia – Genetic data partnerships Academia (41% NIH funding) and Industry: Use of existing private data, company performs analysisPatients: using data and specimens in ways they do not wish

  34. Kayte Spector-Bagdady, to secondary research: stay anonymousPublic health covers Informed consent forms – conceptualize for secondary research protocols Transparency In BioBank Research 67% commercialization of biospecimens agree

  35. Property and Health Data: Excludability, Alienability and Divisibility, Valuation and compensation, Unstewarded and Orphan data, duration, tracking Propertization of medical information effect on biomedical research

  36. Genetic “Property” Statues: @CO – genetic information pertain to the individual health data – common law Personal Property vs Information as Property object

  37. direct consumer protection may get that by Claim of conversion – Common Law Genetic Testing companies are protected by three legal laws consumers as employees face genetic information been accessed by employers via Wellness Programs

  38. Courts shows a newfound openness to claims for genetic conversion claims will not stifle reaserch or create moral harms consumers genetics, claims for genetic conversion necessary to adequately protect people’s interests in their DNA

  39. ⁩ ⁦ three new regulations of ownership of genetic test information ownership even Dx of breast cancer Insurance may not cover BRCA testing

  40. ⁩ ⁦ employment law and genetic testing property ownership

  41. Family not in treatment relationship with the Researcher – Court rejected the claim family donated to research unfair benefir of the Hospital from the data and tissue donatedClaim of conversion – Common LawGene by Gene Family Tree DNA

  42. Insurance may or may not cover BRCA testing Law suit on that matter is pending

  43. Life insurance company initiated genetic testing: (a) Gatekeeping policy underwriting new comer applicants (b) Wellness Employer wellness programs incentivize healthy behavior Incorporate genetic testing into wellness Programs Testing

  44. wellness Programs Test for preventing genetic conditions Like BRCA, Lynch syndrome, preventable – win/win proposition –>>> Healthier employees. Studies show shift of cost from employer to employee and employer have access to genetic i

 

 

RE-TWEETS

 

  1.   Retweeted

    Max Mehlman thinks “DIYBio” is problematic b/c often team efforts; “biohacking” has negative connotations. Suggests “non-traditional biology.”

  2.   Retweeted

    In reviewing how reviewed various tests, Catherine Sharkey discusses how some were reviewed through De Novo and others through 510(k) pathway and benefits and drawbacks of each.

  3.   Retweeted

    . invokes THE CONE OF SILENCE. NO MORE DATA FROM THIS TALK! Medical/scientific publishing norms are weird.

  4.   Retweeted

    A very full house today (480 people registered!) for the Consuming Genetics conference . opening a day that promises to be fascinating. Kudos also for selecting hot topics and amazing speakers.

  5.   Retweeted

    Talking about her ⁦team’s ⁩ paper ⁦⁩ shows most patients want notification of commercial use of biospecimens, most are uncomfortable about profit from biospecimens, but feel better if reinvested in research.

  6.   Retweeted

    You don’t have to identify as a biohacker to understand their goals, interests, and culture.

  7.   Retweeted

    Blog post about about my upcoming presentation at Petrie-Flom Center’s upcoming Consumer Genetics conference this Friday, May 17.

  8.   Retweeted

    Incredibly difficult topic.

  9.   Retweeted

    I asked Maxwell Mehlman how he envisioned biohackers could form an IRB-style review process. One suggestion was to engage with insitutional IRBs. Raise your hand if you think an establishment IRB would approve enhancement experiments? (I don’t…)

  10.   Retweeted

    Gene editing has become cheaper, easier to do in community labs. Max Mehlman ⁦⁩ compares it to where Steve Jobs and Bill Gates began with the personal computer. But US gov has listed as a “weapon of mass destruction”

  11.   Retweeted

    Thanks to for hosting another great conference!

  12.   Retweeted

    “Diversity” means a LOT of different things–it’s very easy to slip back and forth (problematically) between molecular/genetic diversity and social constructs of race. Just using “diversity” elides and blurs important concepts. – Jonathan Kahn @

  13.   Retweeted

    Audience member during Q&A calls the first group of talks “very very interesting — and terrifying.” That’s what we’re here for, folks. These issues are real and we’re happy you’re here to talk about them with us.

  14.   Retweeted

    Just FYI my research showed you cannot waive statutory nondiscrim rights (under GINA or others) but can waive right to judicial forum to decide if there has been a violation (2009 Pyett v 14 Penn Plaza decision-ie case after GINA-overturned 30 years of precedence)

  15.   Retweeted

    FYI in Perlmutter & Peerenboom, the claim was not ownership in the DNA material. It was in the genetic information contained within it

  16.   Retweeted

    “If I want to edit my genes and make my skin glow green, whose business is that?” Barbara Evans on paternalism issues in our views of regulating DIYbio

  17.   Retweeted

    Takeaways from Regulating : Hazel: existing DTC genetic privacy policies are all over the place Sharkey: in an era of big data, FDA is poised to pose enhanced role as health information regulator Schweikart: in gene editing, somatic ≠ germline editing

  18.   Retweeted

    I have been waiting so long for this and is finally here!

  19.   Retweeted

    Many of the regulatory issues/possibilities raised by DIYbio will presented by (co-authors and ) “What can we do with what we’ve already got?”

  20.   Retweeted

    Moderators summary: In today’s panel we heard: -Property law won’t work -Anonymity is dead -Data is being commercialized and we don’t realize it -May be need for publicity rights for DNA. But there is hope. Good things are being done with this data.

  21.   Retweeted

    Is ⁦⁩ right, asks Vertinsky ⁦⁩,to be worried about “genetic ” publishing of information derived from your genetic information (especially discarded DNA). Or a presidential candidate ? What role for law?

  22.   Retweeted

    Interesting points by : Because many biohacking materials exchanges may not take place in traditional commercial contexts, attempting to regulate the trade of materials could prove difficult for FDA.

  23.   Retweeted

    We have not seen much FDA involvement in “genetic biohacking” says , but that might be a shame.Don’t need “harsh involvement” but “engagement” such as education — e.g., how long you can leave potato salad out at picnic, does not mean enforcement

  24.   Retweeted

    On genetic ownership and federalism. ⁦⁩ discusses the 5 states that have protected genetic property and skeptical about how well thought out the common law property approach has been. ⁩ ⁦

  25.   Retweeted

    “When you’re doing something that’s really high risk and cutting edge, maybe you SHOULD experiment on yourself–maybe that’s the most ethical way.” Barbara Evans talks up self-experimentation (reffing previous Nobels) @

  26.   Retweeted

    I feel simultanously very overwhelmed and very excited

  27.   Retweeted

    “Whatever the boundaries of FDA’s authority are [re: biohacking]…there are important questions about how it should use that authority.” @

  28.   Retweeted

    One person uploading info to a genetic database illuminates hundreds or thousands of other people–those people’s info isn’t “voluntarily” in datasets. Genetic databases familial searches aren’t voluntary. Natalie Ram @

  29.   Retweeted

    DIY gene therapy, CRISPR, etc. – failures likely to cause more harm (inadvertent) than successes. Speaker at analogizes to regulation of drones, beer, computer hacking many stakeholders with competing interests.

  30.   Retweeted

    Excellent talk by showing that in the face of clinicians can be legally damned if they do use revealed info and also damned if they don’t–potentially liable for patient’s misguided medical decisions

  31.   Retweeted

    “We need to rethink our Informed Consent methods for our secondary research protocols” – given all the confusion arising among Patients, their Doctors and the Researchers working with the data specimens about the use of the data, says – at Wasserstein Hall

  32.   Retweeted

    How do we deal with Publicity Rights in DNA? Thought-provoking talk by Professor Vertinsky of The “Genetic Paparazzi” conundrum – at Wasserstein Hall

  33.   Retweeted

    argues against recognizing Property Rights in personal health data: “A vast amount of ‘orphan Biomedical data’ is useless” – doesn’t help advance research in the field Other protections already available and more suitable

  34.   Retweeted

    Leading up to Friday’s Conference on Consuming Genetics () here’s a post about my topic: why law isn’t a good fit for health data.

  35.   Retweeted

    Professor Kif Augustine-Adams of says that individual privacy settings on Consumer Genetics testing have limited power; total anonymity is a myth. It is only a matter of time before the relational nature of DNA makes all connections identifiable. – at Wasserstein Hall

  36.   Retweeted

    “Wellness Programs” by Employers or Insurance underwriters – how should they deal with collecting genetic data? suggests Employers / Insurers only act as mediators between members and DTC genetic testing companies, and only get aggregate, anonymized data – at Harvard Law School

  37.   Retweeted

    Natalie Ram: there’s an idea of voluntariness re: searching & genetic information. THAT’S FICTION. Genetic relatedness is different–it’s sticky! “I could decline my aunt’s FaceBook request…but [she] can still serve as reliable-as-ever genetic informant on me.”

  38.   Retweeted

    A lot of thought-provoking posts this month from leading scholars in law, ethics, genetics. Get immersed in the issues before Friday’s conference!

  39.   Retweeted

    When employer “wellness programs” incentivize employees to use , consider what goes to , what to or , & what does employee have about any of this.

  40.   Retweeted

    Looking forward to joining this awesome line-up of speakers at ‘s conference & talking about ‘s, ‘s & my work. Thx to , & for organizing!

  41.   Retweeted

    It’s not every day that a serious conference on discusses Brad Pitt in a bath leaving behind sperm that later impregnates a woman and the legal challenges that emerge. Well done – you managed to get everyone’s attention 🙂

  42.   Retweeted

    Anguishing story told with elegance and grace. We are all utterly unprepared for generations of secrets unearthed by 26 million ++ kits sold to date.

  43.   Retweeted

    “Civilized societies are nearby, believe it or not!” explains how when is implemented in Canada, it means the government pays for it. (We are all v jealous about your developed country to the north, Vardit)

  44.   Retweeted

    Jonathan Kahn ⁦⁩ ⁦⁩ discusses the fall and rise of race in genetic medicine, its science and politics.

  45.   Retweeted

    Yes! And we should continue to strive to have racial and ethnic representation to ensure that genomic research and policy doesn’t continue to exacerbate racial disparities

  46.   Retweeted

    Fascinating discussions today at the conference

  47.   Retweeted

    Potential consequences are greater when editing germline compared with somatic cells, because its modification can allow for the generational transmission of altered genes. laying out priciplist bioethical concerns of

  48.   Retweeted

    Health information should not be treated as property to protect individuals, says . Instead, we should continue to enhance existing regulatory and liability rules to safeguard individual privacy and data security.

  49.   Retweeted

    There has been a relunctance by courts to recognize information as property, but that could change drastically when it comes to genetic data.

  50.   Retweeted

    Sir Wm. Blackstone is always a hit on the big screen — from my talk today on why health data isn’t property .

  51.   Retweeted

    FDA involvement with DTC tests hasn’t shut them down. Five have been approved, and FDA has been flexible in its approval pathway (4 de novo, 1 510(k)). – Catherine Sharkey @

  52.   Retweeted

    Emily Qian of is a genetic counselor and is co-author on one of the blog posts in our symposium:

  53.   Retweeted

    At the Ethics Conference on Consuming Genomics. There was a question about why patients decline participating in precision medicine research. Check out our paper on why patients decline genomic sequencing

  54.   Retweeted

    Great turnout at DTC genomics conference today. Tour de force discussion of the issues facing the personal genomics industry and consumers today.

  55.   Retweeted

    “Informed consent is a process” that should include: test’s purpose, possible results of the test, test’s limitations/consequences, confidentiality/privacy, risks of testing and familial implications, and voluntary participation.

  56.   Retweeted

    The amazing ⁦⁩ closes out the conference by discussing the ethics of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), it’s ethical challenges, and how whole genome NIPT may make “the fetus transparent.”

  57.   Retweeted

    .: what about DNA vigilantes who upload information to databases explicitly to help law enforcement? Natalie Ram: BAM I ALREADY WROTE THAT ARTICLE CHECK IT OUT. (forthcoming , mayyyybe here? )

  58.   Retweeted

    23andMe does a pretty good job situating and contextualizing results, but APOE testing may have little benefit

  59.   Retweeted

    Is ⁦⁩ ‘s test for APOE associated with Alzheimer’s different ethically speaking from its other tests? ⁦⁩ ⁦⁩ discuss ⁦

  60.   Retweeted

    Ultrasound technology made the uterus transparent, so parents could see their child before it was born. In the future, could make the fetus itself transparent, so parents can see the whole genome. Many associated ethical challenges, both pre- and post-birth

  61.   Retweeted

    Great talk by one of the authors at on the need for laws and regulations to protect the privacy rights of genetic testing consumers and assuage concerns about information

  62.   Retweeted

    Johnathan on The Fall and Rise of Race in Genomics: – not a thing (2000) – a stepping stone to true targeting (2005) – useful to classify subpopulations (2011) – under-representation of ethnically diverse subpopulations are necessary for good data (2019)

  63.   Retweeted

    When tests allow the breach of anonymity and privacy of relatives who don’t want to be known–including in cases of rape–what should we do? Answers aren’t easy. -Kif Augustine-Adams

  64.   Retweeted

    Listening to the brilliant discuss the concept of non-directiveness in genetic counseling.

  65.   Retweeted

    Grateful for the opportunity to participate in the Annual Conference – thanks Carmel Sachar & Cristine Hutchison-Jones for a great line-up & planning- learned a lot & left with many more ?s to consider

  66.   Retweeted

    & : “The more jurisdictions that adopt a cautionary approach to their own regulations for genome editing (particularly heritable genome editing) the more likely negative world-wide consequences can be mitigated.”

  67.   Retweeted

    There’s no prospect of potentially suing because of the disclaimers and forced arbitration put into agreements by the company ⁦

  68.   Retweeted

    explains the ways employer wellness programs is only a “theoretical win-win.” Minimal results come at the cost at privacy, and all of which can also show up in insurace realms as well. (Ex: Life insurers also implementing wellness policies)

  69.   Retweeted

    Although increasing access to predictive/actionable genetic tests could theoretically be beneficial, we should be cautious about using third-parties, like life insurers, to disseminate these tests to their consumers without greater regulatory protections.

  70.   Retweeted

    . has examined for years whether we should own our genetic info. Three reactions: Lay: yeah, duh Lawyers: no, duh (see Moore v Regents of U of Cal) Clinicians/researchers: Good God No! Disaster! (Not live-tweeting b/c draft here: )

  71.   Retweeted

    Property Conversion in Genetic Property Rights – who owns the rights? “Researchers need to be transparent and use adequate informed consent” – claims for generic conversion should not stifle research or create moral harms, suggests – at Wasserstein Hall

  72.   Retweeted

    We’re so proud of our friend and Academic Fellowship alum ! ✨🕺🏻

  73.   Retweeted

    Why is most insurance typically a state issue? FYI – Congress essentially “blessed” and preserved a state regulatory system of the insurance industry with passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. It makes it politically difficult to push this at federal level

  74.   Retweeted

    DTC genetic testing customers lack legal protections. Genetic conversations might offer them some rights… ?

  75.   Retweeted

    . takeaway: Wellness programs aren’t necessarily bad, but question is what data goes to consumers, what data to employers and insurers, and what can they do with it?

  76.   Retweeted

    . takeaway: w/r/t liability, companies are essentially immune because of disclaimers & arbitration clauses; doctors may be on the hook.

  77.   Retweeted

    Q by : What do we tell GCs/trainees when we get a DTC result that needs to be confirmed but insurance won’t pay for confirmation? Answer: not very clear, but might be liable if we do nothing. Yikes!

  78.   Retweeted

    Major disconnect with the ideas of ways to convert health data into what we have traditionally considered property-like rights.

  79.   Retweeted

    Great point from about how to treat “control group” genetic data, from those without the indicative genetic information, in arguments for genetic ownership/remuneration arguments.

  80.   Retweeted

    The story of a mom who contacts her (donor conceived) five-year-old’s grandmother — then gets threatened by a sperm bank

  81.   Retweeted

    The ethical debate about anonymity is MOOT. There is no anonymity for sperm donors, nor are there any federal laws regarding anonymity of sperm donors. (Some states address medical information/disclosure but not anonymity)

  82.   Retweeted

    Three observations: 1. Biomedical data/samples are governed by method of procurement 2. Contributors care about use 3. Specimens/data procured differently end up being used similarly (lots of mixing between academia & industry). ==>TENSION. – @

  83.   Retweeted

    Rights to privacy or publicity – What will the courts decide? Well, it’s unclear because there are gaps in the existing laws. Liza Vertinsky also looking at the underlying implications of the choices of legal pathways

  84.   Retweeted

    . is an active moderator! Asking excellent questions (including mine–how do we react to patients not ‘getting’ consent info?, and then ‘s on right not to be a genetic parent! Need to think on your feet w/ Nita around!)

  85.   Retweeted

  86.   Retweeted

    Wondering how panelists and fellow attendees feel about this lack of anonymity? and individuals conceived from egg or who want to know about their background never consented to anonymity of donors

  87.   Retweeted

    Yeah that looks simple! Barbara Evans on what the regulatory pathway issupposed to look like and what makes it challenging in the world of genetics using charts from 2017 reports. And an ode to the “pink golden retriever” we all want

  88.   Retweeted

    You’re welcome!

  89.   Retweeted

    Barbara Evans: Peer-review is no longer the threshold for good science it once was – grant review is. But if research is not funded…those protections aren’t there

  90.   Retweeted

    How well are companies doing in complying with the privacy principles they themselves signed on to? James Hazel talks about the work he and Chris Slobogin ⁦⁩ ⁦⁩ have done. ⁦

  91.   Retweeted

    Excellent talk by Barbara Evans expressing skepticism about a top down regulatory approach on biohacking (“If I want to turn my skin bright green who’s the FDA to tell me I can’t?), citing Lisa Ikemoto’s excellent DIY Bio Hacking article

  92.   Retweeted

    Terrific representation of women at ! Speakers: 14F, 6M Moderators: 4F, 2M Nicely done, folks.

  93.   Retweeted

    Panel takeaways: * DTC privacy policies are all over the place, and Best practices are a good way forward. * FDA is poised to take an advanced role as a regulator in the field. * We must differentiate between germline and somatic editing for regulation

  94.   Retweeted

    Catherine Sharkey asks us to consider the FDA may play in managing the conceptual risk and regulatory model for DTC genetic testing especially given the complexities that AI, machine learning, and big data add to this industry

  95.   Retweeted

    You can hear a pin drop in the auditorium as Kif Augustine tells a very personal tale about how reveals a story of rape and a lost half sister. Secrets, lies, ancestry, DNA, and Mormon Orthodoxy in 1959 Utah.

  96.   Retweeted

    And what does diversity mean? What does it do? Among other things, drives $$$$ funding in the research cycle.

  97.   Retweeted

    Health equity is due to structural and systemic racism in the field present from its beginnings. Seeking more diversity in the workforce will not solve this “health equity” issue. As Jonathan Khan notes, these d&i initiatives can be used to elide responsibility

  98.   Retweeted

    Natalie Ram at talks about familial investigations for law enforcement. For a short, recent piece w/ & Amy McGuire: . Longer ago and longer (by far) in :

  99.   Retweeted

    Natalie Ram uses her baby bump as the ultimate scholarly “flex” in showing the involuntary and immutable nature of informational revelation for the children we produce. How do these elements make the forensic use of that information different?

  100.   Retweeted

    Ooh interesting! Natalie Ram argues that the involuntariness of familial info getting into databases means the Third Party Doctrine [which sucks anyway] shouldn’t apply. (here’s her piece, DNA by the Entirety: )

  101.   Retweeted

    providing a range of policy/legal choices about how to address new forms of noninvasive prenatal testing

Read Full Post »


 

From Technicall.y Philly.com

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Spark Therapeutics’ $4.8B deal confirmed as biggest-ever VC-backed exit in Philly

Quick update on this week’s news: The University City life sciences company’s acquisition by Swiss pharma giant Roche is the biggest acquisition ever of a VC-backed company within city limits, per PitchBook and PACT.

The eye-popping $4.8 billion sticker price on Spark Therapeutics’acquisition deal with Roche announced on Monday is shaping up to be the largest exit ever within city limits for a venture-backed company, according to data from financial data provider PitchBook and the Philadelphia Alliance for Capital and Technologies (PACT).

“Filtering down to just Philadelphia proper does reveal that Spark Therapeutics, once the deal closes, will be the biggest exit ever for Philly-based venture-backed exits,” the company said in an email, citing data from an upcoming report.

According to the Seattle-based company’s data, the current holder of the largest Philly-proper exit title goes to Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, which in 2010 announced its acquisition by Lilly in a deal valued at up to $800 million.

Founded in 2013, Spark is a publicly traded spinout of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), which invested $33 million in the company. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that CHOP stands to reap a total return of $430 million for its minority stake in Spark Therapeutics.

As part of the acquisition deal, the company will remain based out of 3711 Market St., and continue to do business as a standalone Roche company.

“This transaction demonstrates the enormous value that global biotech companies like Roche see in gene therapy, a field in which Philadelphia is the unquestioned leader,” said Saul Behar, senior VP of  advancement and strategic initiatives at the University City Science Center, the West Philly research park where Spark began and grew its operations. “[This] further validates Greater Philadelphia’s status as a biotech hub with a very bright future.”

Spark CEO Jeff Marrazzo said the deep pool of resources from Roche, the company plans to “accelerate the development of more gene therapies for more patients for more diseases and further expedite our vision of a world where no life is limited by genetic disease.”

Other articles on Gene Therapy and Retinal Disease on this Open Access Online Journal include:

Women Leaders in Cell and Gene Therapy

AGTC (AGTC) , An adenoviral gene therapy startup, expands in Florida with help from $1 billion deal with Biogen

Artificial Vision: Cornell and Stanford Researchers crack Retinal Code

D-Eye: a smartphone-based retinal imaging system

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »