Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
Immunotherapy may help in glioblastoma survival, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 1: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.
Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults and is associated with poor survival. But, in a glimmer of hope, a recent study found that a drug designed to unleash the immune system helped some patients live longer. Glioblastoma powerfully suppresses the immune system, both at the site of the cancer and throughout the body, which has made it difficult to find effective treatments. Such tumors are complex and differ widely in their behavior and characteristics.
A small randomized, multi-institution clinical trial was conducted and led by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles involved patients who had a recurrence of glioblastoma, the most common central nervous system cancer. The aim was to evaluate immune responses and survival following neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab (checkpoint inhibitor) in 35 patients with recurrent, surgically resectable glioblastoma. Patients who were randomized to receive neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, with continued adjuvant therapy following surgery, had significantly extended overall survival compared to patients that were randomized to receive adjuvant, post-surgical programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade alone.
Neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade was associated with upregulation of T cell– and interferon-γ-related gene expression, but downregulation of cell-cycle-related gene expression within the tumor, which was not seen in patients that received adjuvant therapy alone. Focal induction of programmed death-ligand 1 in the tumor microenvironment, enhanced clonal expansion of T cells, decreased PD-1 expression on peripheral blood T cells and a decreasing monocytic population was observed more frequently in the neoadjuvant group than in patients treated only in the adjuvant setting. These findings suggest that the neoadjuvant administration of PD-1 blockade enhanced both the local and systemic antitumor immune response and may represent a more efficacious approach to the treatment of this uniformly lethal brain tumor.
Immunotherapy has not proved to be effective against glioblastoma. This small clinical trial explored the effect of PD-1 blockade on recurrent glioblastoma in relation to the timing of administration. A total of 35 patients undergoing resection of recurrent disease were randomized to either neoadjuvant or adjuvant pembrolizumab, and surgical specimens were compared between the two groups. Interestingly, the tumoral gene expression signature varied between the two groups, such that those who received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab displayed an INF-γ gene signature suggestive of T-cell activation as well as suppression of cell-cycle signaling, possibly consistent with growth arrest. Although the study was not powered for efficacy, the group found an increase in overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant pembrolizumab compared with adjuvant pembrolizumab of 13.7 months versus 7.5 months, respectively.
In this small pilot study, neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade followed by surgical resection was associated with intratumoral T-cell activation and inhibition of tumor growth as well as longer survival. How the drug works in glioblastoma has not been totally established. The researchers speculated that giving the drug before surgery prompted T-cells within the tumor, which had been impaired, to attack the cancer and extend lives. The drug didn’t spur such anti-cancer activity after the surgery because those T-cells were removed along with the tumor. The results are very important and very promising but would need to be validated in much larger trials.
The second annual PureTech Health BIG Summit brings together an elite ensemble of leading scientific researchers, investors, and CEOs and R&D leaders from major pharmaceutical, technology, and biotech companies.
The BIG Summit is designed to stimulate ideas that will have an impact on existing pipelines and catalyze future interactions among a group of delegates that represent leaders and innovators in their fields.
Please follow the discussion on Twitter using #BIGAxisSummit
By invitation only; registration is non-transferable.
For more information, please contact PureTechHealthSummit@PureTechHealth.com
Back for final sessions at #BIGAxisSummit. @PureTechH Jim Harper of Sonde Health talking about how voice data — pacing, fine motor articulation, oscillation — can point the way to objective, quantitative measures for detecting and monitoring depression.
Paul Biondi at #BIGAxisSummit : What makes big deals happen is financial, and *deep conviction* of a big future fit. Disproportionate valuation from bidders is expected.
Love this. We often reduce everything to mathematical analyses to champion or ridicule deals. Not that simple
Bob Langer (@MIT) asks how #lymphatics affected by #aging. Santambrogio: typically blame aging #immune cells for increased disease, but aging affects lymphatics too (less efficient trafficking shown). Rejuvenating these could affect several aging-related diseases #BigAxisSummit
TWEETS by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 at #IESYMPOSIUM – @kochinstitute 2019 #Immune #Engineering #Symposium, 1/28/2019 – 1/29/2019
Real Time Press Coverage: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
2.1.3.4 TWEETS by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 at #IESYMPOSIUM – @kochinstitute 2019 #Immune #Engineering #Symposium, 1/28/2019 – 1/29/2019, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair
eProceedings for Day 1 and Day 2
LIVE Day One – Koch Institute 2019 Immune Engineering Symposium, January 28, 2019, Kresge Auditorium, MIT
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Aviv Regev @kochinstitute Melanoma: malignant cells with resistance in cold niches in situ cells express the resistance program pre-treatment: resistance UP – cold Predict checkpoint immunotherapy outcomes CDK4/6 abemaciclib in cell lines
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Diane Mathis @HMS Age-dependent Treg and mSC changes – Linear with increase in age Sex-dependent Treg and mSC changes – Female Treg loss in cases of Obesity leading to fibrosis Treg keep IL-33-Producing mSCs under rein Lean tissue/Obese tissue
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Martin LaFleur @HMS Loss of Ptpn2 enhances CD8+ T cell responses to LCMV and Tumors PTpn2 deletion in the immune system enhanced tumor immunity CHIME enables in vivo screening
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Alex Shalek @MIT@kochinstitute Identifying and rationally modulating cellular drivers of enhanced immunity T Cells, Clusters Expression of Peak and Memory Immunotherapy- Identifying Dendritic cells enhanced in HIV-1 Elite Controllers
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Glenn Dranoff @Novartis Adenosine level in blood or tissue very difficult to measure in blood even more than in tissue – NIR178 + PDR 001 Monotherapy (NIR178) combine with PD receptor blockage (PDR) show benefit A alone vs A+B in Clinical trial
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Glenn Dranoff @Novartis PD-L1 blockade elicits responses in some patients: soft part sarcoma LAG-3 combined with PD-1 – human peripheral blood tumor TIM-3 key regulator of T cell and Myeloid cell function: correlates in the TCGA DB myeloid
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Yvonne Chen @UCLA Activation of t Cell use CAR t Engineer CAR-T to respond to soluble form of antigens: CD19 CAR Responds to soluble CD19 GFP MCAR responds to Dimeric GFP “Tumor microenvironment is a scary place”
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Yvonne Chen @UCLA “Engineering smarter and stronger T cells for cancer immunotherapy” OR-Gate cause no relapse – Probing limits of modularity in CAR Design Bispecific CARs are superior to DualCAR: One vs DualCAR (some remained single CAR)
Ending the 1st session is Cathy Wu of @DanaFarber detailing some amazing work on vaccination strategies for melanoma and glioblastoma patients. They use long peptides engineered from tumor sequencing data. #iesymposium
Some fancy imaging: Duggan gives a nice demo of how dSTORM imaging works using a micropatterend image of Kennedy Institute for Rheumatology! yay! #iesymposium
Lots of interesting talks in the second session of the #iesymposium – effects of lymphoangiogenesis on anti-tumor immune responses, nanoparticle based strategies to improve bNAbs titers/affinity for HIV therapy, and IAPi cancer immunotherapy
Looking forward to another day of the #iesymposium. One more highlight from yesterday – @nm0min from our own lab showcased her work developing cytokine fusions that bind to collagen, boosting efficacy while drastically reducing toxicities
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Preeti Sharma, U Illinois T cell receptor and CAR-T engineering TCR engineering for Targeting glycosylated cancer antigens Nornal glycosylation vs Aberrant Engineering 237-CARs libraries with conjugated (Tn-OTS8) against Tn-antigend In vitro
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Bryan Bryson @MIT Loss of polarization potential: scRNAseq reveals transcriptional differences Thioredoxin facilitates immune response to Mtb is a marker of an inflammatory macrophage state functional spectrum of human microphages
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Bryan Bryson @MIT macrophage axis in Mycobacterium tuberculosis Building “libraries” – surface marker analysis of Microphages Polarized macrophages are functionally different quant and qual differences History of GM-CSF suppresses IL-10
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Jamie Spangler John Hopkins University “Reprogramming anti-cancer immunity RESPONSE through molecular engineering” De novo IL-2 potetiator in therapeutic superior to the natural cytokine by molecular engineering mimicking other cytokines
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Michael Dustin @UniofOxford ESCRT pathway associated with synaptic ectosomes Locatization, Microscopy Cytotoxic T cell granules CTLs release extracellular vescicles similar to T Helper with perforin and granzyme – CTL vesicles kill targets
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Michael Dustin @Oxford Delivery of T cell Effector function through extracellular vesicles Synaptic ectosome biogenisis Model: T cells: DOpamine cascade in germinal cell delivered to synaptic cleft – Effector CD40 – Transfer is cooperative
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Michael Dustin @Oxford Delivery of T cell Effector function through extracellular vesicles Laterally mobile ligands track receptor interaction ICAM-1 Signaling of synapse – Sustain signaling by transient in microclusters TCR related Invadipodia
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Mikael Pittet @MGH Myeloid Cells in Cancer Indirect mechanism AFTER a-PD-1 Treatment IFN-gamma Sensing Fosters IL-12 & therapeutic Responses aPD-1-Mediated Activation of Tumor Immunity – Direct activation and the ‘Licensing’ Model
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Stefani Spranger @MIT KI Response to checkpoint blockade Non-T cell-inflamed – is LACK OF T CELL INFILTRATION Tumor CD103 dendritic cells – Tumor-residing Batf3-drivenCD103 Tumor-intrinsic Beta-catenin mediates lack of T cell infiltration
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Max Krummel @UCSF Gene expression association between two genes: #NK and #cDC1 numbers are tightly linked to response to checkpoint blockage IMMUNE “ACCOMODATION” ARCHYTYPES: MYELOID TUNING OF ARCHITYPES Myeloid function and composition
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Noor Momin, MIT Lumican-cytokines improve control of distant lesions – Lumican-fusion potentiates systemic anti-tumor immunity
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Noor Momin, MIT Lumican fusion to IL-2 improves treatment efficacy reduce toxicity – Anti-TAA mAb – TA99 vs IL-2 Best efficacy and least toxicity in Lumican-MSA-IL-2 vs MSA-IL2 Lumican synergy with CAR-T
excited to attend the @kochinstitute@MIT immune engineering symposium #iesymposium this week! find me there to chat about @CellCellPress and whether your paper could be a good fit for us!
April Pawluk added,
Koch Institute at MITVerified account@kochinstitute
Join leading immunology researchers at our Immune Engineering Symposium on Jan. 28 & 29. Register now: http://bit.ly/2AOUWH6#iesymposium
Bob Schreiber and Tyler Jacks kicked off the #iesymposium with 2 great talks on the role of Class I and Class II neo-Ag in tumor immunogenicity and how the tumor microenvironment alters T cell responsiveness to tumors in vivo
Scott Wilson from @UChicago gave a fantastic talk on glycopolymer conjugation to antigens to improve trafficking to HAPCs and enhanced tolerization in autoimmunity models. Excited to learn more about his work at his @MITChemE faculty talk! #iesymposium
Spending the (literal) first day of my fellowship at the @kochinstitute#iesymposium! @DanaFarber Cathy Wu talking about the use of neoantigen targeting cancer vaccines for the treatment of ‘cold’ glioblastoma tumors in pts
Tyler Jacks talk was outstanding, Needs be delivered A@TED TALKs, needs become contents in the curriculum of Cell Biology graduate seminar as an Online class. BRAVO @pharma_BI@AVIVA1950
Aviva Lev-Ari added,
Anne E Deconinck@AEDeconinck
My boss, @kochinstitute director Tyler Jacks, presenting beautiful, unpublished work at our 3rd #iesymposium.
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Stephanie Dougan (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) Dept. Virology IAPi outperforms checkpoint blockade in T cell cold tumors reduction of tumor burden gencitabine cross-presenting DCs and CD8 T cells – T cell low 6694c2
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Melody Swartz (University of Chicago) Lymphangiogenesis attractive to Native T cells, in VEGF-C tumors T cell homing inhibitors vs block T cell egress inhibitors – Immunotherapy induces T cell killing
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Cathy Wu @MGH breakthrough for Brain Tumor #vaccine based neoantigen-specific T cell at intracranial site Single cells brain tissue vs single cells from neoantigen specific T cells – intratumoral neoantigen-specific T cells: mutARGAP35-spacific
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Cathy Wu (Massachusetts General Hospital) – CoFounder of NEON Enduring complete radiographic responses after #Neovax + alpha-PD-1 treatment (anti-PD-1) NeoVax vs IVAC Mutanome for melanoma and Glioblastoma clinical trials
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950@TylerJacks@MIT Interrogating markers of T cell dysfunction – chance biology of cells by CRISPR – EGR2 at 2 weeks dysfuntioning is reduced presence of EDR2 mutant class plays role in cell metabolism cell becomes functional regulator CD8 T cell
MISSION The mission of the Koch Institute (KI) is to apply the tools of science and technology to improve the way cancer is detected, monitored, treated and prevented.
APPROACH We bring together scientists and engineers – in collaboration with clinicians and industry partners – to solve the most intractable problems in cancer. Leveraging MIT’s strengths in technology, the life sciences and interdisciplinary research, the KI is pursuing scientific excellence while also directly promoting innovative ways to diagnose, monitor, and treat cancer through advanced technology.
HISTORY The Koch Institute facility was made possible through a $100 million gift from MIT alumnus David H. Koch. Our new building opened in March 2011, coinciding with MIT’s 150th anniversary. Our community has grown out of the MIT Center for Cancer Research (CCR), which was founded in 1974 by Nobel Laureate and MIT Professor Salvador Luria, and is one of seven National Cancer Institute-designated basic (non-clinical) research centers in the U.S.
Biological, chemical, and materials engineers are engaged at the forefront of immunology research. At their disposal is an analytical toolkit honed to solve problems in the petrochemical and materials industries, which share the presence of complex reaction networks, and convective and diffusive molecular transport. Powerful synthetic capabilities have also been crafted: binding proteins can be engineered with effectively arbitrary specificity and affinity, and multifunctional nanoparticles and gels have been designed to interact in highly specific fashions with cells and tissues. Fearless pursuit of knowledge and solutions across disciplinary boundaries characterizes this nascent discipline of immune engineering, synergizing with immunologists and clinicians to put immunotherapy into practice.
The 2019 symposium will include two poster sessions and four abstract-selected talks. Abstracts should be uploaded on the registration page. Abstract submission deadline is November 15, 2018. Registration closes December 14.
Featuring on Day 2, 1/29, 2019:
Session IV
Moderator: Michael Birnbaum, Koch Institute, MIT
Jamie Spangler (John Hopkins University)
“Reprogramming anti-cancer immunity through molecular engineering”
Reprogramming anti-cancer immunity response through molecular engineering”
Cytokines induce receptor dimerization
Clinical Use of cytokines: Pleiotropy, expression and stability isssues
poor pharmacological properties
cytokine therapy: New de novo protein using computational methods
IL-2 signals through a dimeric nad a trimeric receptor complex
IL-2 pleiotropy hinders its therapeutic efficacy
IL-2 activate immunosuppression
potentiation of cytokine activity by anti-IL-2 antibody selectivity
Cytokine binding – Antibodies compete with IL-2 receptor subunits
IL-2Ralpha, IL-2 Rbeta: S4B6 mimickry of alpha allosterically enhances beta
Affinity – molecular eng De Novo design of a hyper-stable, effector biased IL-2
De novo IL-2 poteniator in therapeutic superior to the natural cytokine by molecular engineering
Bryan Bryson (MIT, Department of Biological Engineering)
“Exploiting the macrophage axis in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection”
TB – who develop Active and why?
Immunological life cycle of Mtb
Global disease Mtb infection outcome varies within individual host
lesion are found by single bacteria
What are the cellular players in immune success
MACROPHAGES – molecular signals enhancing Mtb control of macrophages
modeling the host- macrophages are plastic and polarize
Building “libraries” – surface marker analysis of Microphages
Polarized macrophages are functionally different
quant and qual differences
History of GM-CSF suppresses IL-10
Loss of polarization potential: scRNAseq reveals transcriptional differences Thioredoxin facilitates immune response to Mtb is a marker of an inflammatory macrophage state
functional spectrum of human microphages
Facundo Batista (Ragon Institute (HIV Research) @MGH, MIT and Harvard)
“Vaccine evaluation in rapidly produced custom humanized mouse models”
Effective B cell activation requires 2 signals Antigen and binding to T cell
VDJ UCA (Unmutated common Ancestor)
B Cell Receptor (BCR) co-receptors and cytoskeleton
44% in Women age 24-44
Prototype HIV broadly neutralizing Antibodies (bnAb) do not bind to Env protein – Immunogen design and validation
Human Ig Knock-ins [Light variable 5′ chain length vs 7′ length] decisive to inform immunogenicity – One-Step CRISPR approach does not require ES cell work
Proof of principle with BG18 Germline Heavy Chain (BG18-gH) High-mannose patch – mice exhibit normal B cell development
B cells from naive human germline BG18-gH bind to GT2 immunogen
Interrogate immune response for HIV, Malaria, Zika, Flu
Session V
Moderator: Dane Wittrup, Koch Institute, MIT
Yvonne Chen (University of California, Los Angeles)
“Engineering smarter and stronger T cells for cancer immunotherapy”
Adoptive T-Cell Therapy
Tx for Leukemia – Tumor Antigen escape fro CAR T-cell therapy, CD19/CD20 OR-Gate CARs for prevention of antigen escape – 15 month of development
reduce probability of antigen escape due to two antigen CD19/CD20: Probing limits of modularity in CAR design
In vivo model: 75% wild type & 25% CD19 – relapse occur in the long term, early vs late vs no relapse: Tx with CAR t had no relapse
OR-Gate cause no relapse – Probing limits of modularity in CAR Design
Bispecific CARs are superior to DualCAR: One vs DualCAR (some remained single CAR)
Bispecific CARs exhibit superior antigen-stimulation capacity – OR-Gate CAR Outperforms Single-Input CARs
Lymphoma and Leukemia are 10% of all Cancers
TGF-gamma Rewiring T Cell Response
Activation of t Cell use CAR t
Engineer CAR-T to respond to soluble form of antigens: CD19 CAR Responds to soluble CD19
GFP MCAR responds to Dimeric GFP
“Tumor microenvironment is a scary place”
Michael Birnbaum, MIT, Koch Institute
“A repertoire of protective tumor immunity”
Decoding T and NK cell recognition – understanding immune recognition and signaling function for reprogramming the Immune system – Neoantigen vaccine pipeline
Personal neoantigen vax improve immunotherapy
CLASS I and CLASS II epitomes: MHC prediction performance – more accurate for CLASS I HLA polymorphisms
Immune Epitope DB and Analysis Resources 448,630 Peptide Epitomes
PD-L1 blockade elicits responses in some patients: soft part sarcoma
LAG-3 combined with PD-1 – human peripheral blood tumor
TIM-3 key regulator of T cell and Myeloid cell function: correlates in the TCGA DB with myeloid
Adenosine level in blood or tissue very difficult to measure in blood even more than in tissue – NIR178 + PDR 001 Mono-therapy (NIR178) combine with PD receptor blockage (PDR) – shows benefit
A alone vs A+B in Clinical trial
Session VI
Moderator: Stefani Spranger, Koch Institute, MIT
Tim Springer, Boston Children’s Hospital, HMS
The Milieu Model for TGF-Betta Activation”
Protein Science – Genomics with Protein
Antibody Initiative – new type of antibodies not a monoclonal antibody – a different type
Pro TGF-beta
TGF-beta – not a typical cytokine it is a prodamine for Mature growth factor — 33 genes mono and heterogeneous dimers
Latent TGF-Beta1 crystal structure: prodomaine shields the Growth Factor
Mechanism od activation of pro-TGF-beta – integrin alphaVBeta 6: pro-beta1:2
Simulation in vivo: actin cytoskeleton cytoplasmic domain
blocking antibodies LRRC33 mitigate toxicity on PD-L1 treatment
Alex Shalek, MIT, Department of Chemistry, Koch Institute
“Identifying and rationally modulating cellular drivers of enhanced immunity”
Balance in the Immune system
Profiling Granulomas using Seq-Well 2.0
lung tissue in South Africa of TB patients
Granulomas, linking cell type abundance with burden
Exploring T cells Phenotypes
Cytotoxic & Effector ST@+ Regulatory
Vaccine against TB – 19% effective, only 0 IV BCG vaccination can elicit sterilizing Immunity
Profiling cellular response to vaccination
T cell gene modules across vaccine routes
T Cells, Clusters
Expression of Peak and Memory
Immunotherapy- Identifying Dendritic cells enhanced in HIV-1 Elite Controllers
moving from Observing to Engineering
Cellular signature: NK-kB Signaling
Identifying and testing Cellular Correlates of TB Protection
Beyond Biology: Translation research: Data sets: dosen
Session VII
Moderator: Stefani Spranger, Koch Institute, MIT
Diane Mathis, Harvard Medical School
“Tissue T-regs”
T reg populations in Lymphoid Non–lymphoid Tissues
2009 – Treg tissue homeostasis status – sensitivity to insulin, 5-15% CD4+ T compartment
transcriptome
expanded repertoires TCRs
viceral adipose tissue (VAT) – Insulin
Dependencies: Taget IL-33 its I/1r/1 – encoded Receptor ST2
VAT up-regulate I/1r/1:ST2 Signaling
IL-33 – CD45 negative CD31 negative
mSC Production of IL-33 is Important to Treg
The mesenchyme develops into the tissues of the lymphatic and circulatory systems, as well as the musculoskeletal system. This latter system is characterized as connective tissues throughout the body, such as bone, muscle and cartilage. A malignant cancer of mesenchymal cells is a type of sarcoma.
Age-dependent Treg and mSC changes – Linear with increase in age
Sex-dependent Treg and mSC changes – Female
Treg loss in cases of Obesity leading to fibrosis
Treg keep IL-33-Producing mSCs under rein
Lean tissue vs Obese tissue
Aged mice show poor skeletal muscle repair – it is reverses by IL-33 Injection
Immuno-response: target tissues systemic T reg
Treg and mSC
Aviv Regev, Broad Institute; Koch Institute
“Cell atlases as roadmaps to understand Cancer”
Colon disease UC – genetic underlining risk, – A single cell atlas of healthy and UC colonic mucosa inflammed and non-inflammed: Epithelial, stromal, Immune – fibroblast not observed in UC colon IAFs; IL13RA2 + IL11
Anti TNF responders – epithelial cells
Anti TNF non-responders – inflammatory monocytes fibroblasts
RESISTANCE to anti-cancer therapy: OSM (Inflammatory monocytes-OSMR (IAF)
cell-cell interactions from variations across individuals
Most UC-risk genes are cell type specific
Variation within a cell type helps predict GWAS gene functions – epithelial cell signature – organize US GWAS into cell type specific – genes in associated regions: UC and IBD
Melanoma
malignant cells with resistance in cold niches in situ
cells express the resistance program pre-treatment: resistance UP – cold
Predict checkpoint immunotherapy outcomes
CDK4/6 – computational search predict as program regulators: abemaciclib in cell lines
Poster Presenters
Preeti Sharma, University of Illinois
T cell receptor and CAR-T engineering – T cell therapy
TCR Complex: Vbeta Cbeta P2A Valpha Calpha
CAR-T Aga2 HA scTCR/scFv c-myc
Directed elovution to isolate optimal TCR or CAR
Eng TCR and CARt cell therapy
Use of TCRs against pep/MHC allows targeting a n array of cancer antigens
TCRs are isolated from T cell clones
Conventional TCR identification method vs In Vitro TCR Eng directed evolution
T1 and RD1 TCRs drive activity against MART-1 in CD4+ T cells
CD8+
TCR engineering for Targeting glycosylated cancer antigens
Normal glycosylation vs Aberrant glycosylation
Engineering 237-CARs libraries with conjugated (Tn-OTS8) against multiple human Tn-antigend
In vitro engineering: broaden specificity to multiple peptide backbone
CAR engineering collaborations with U Chicago, U Wash, UPenn, Copenhagen, Germany
Martin LaFleur, HMS
CRISPR- Cas9 Bone marrow stem cells for Cancer Immunotherapy
CHIME: CHimeric IMmune Editing system
sgRNA-Vex
CHIME can be used to KO genes in multiple immune lineages
identify T cell intrinsic effects in the LCMV model Spleen-depleted, Spleen enhanced
Loss of Ptpn2 enhances CD8+ T cell responses to LCMV and Tumors
Ptpn2 deletion in the immune system enhanced tumor immunity
MISSION The mission of the Koch Institute (KI) is to apply the tools of science and technology to improve the way cancer is detected, monitored, treated and prevented.
APPROACH We bring together scientists and engineers – in collaboration with clinicians and industry partners – to solve the most intractable problems in cancer. Leveraging MIT’s strengths in technology, the life sciences and interdisciplinary research, the KI is pursuing scientific excellence while also directly promoting innovative ways to diagnose, monitor, and treat cancer through advanced technology.
HISTORY The Koch Institute facility was made possible through a $100 million gift from MIT alumnus David H. Koch. Our new building opened in March 2011, coinciding with MIT’s 150th anniversary. Our community has grown out of the MIT Center for Cancer Research (CCR), which was founded in 1974 by Nobel Laureate and MIT Professor Salvador Luria, and is one of seven National Cancer Institute-designated basic (non-clinical) research centers in the U.S.
Biological, chemical, and materials engineers are engaged at the forefront of immunology research. At their disposal is an analytical toolkit honed to solve problems in the petrochemical and materials industries, which share the presence of complex reaction networks, and convective and diffusive molecular transport. Powerful synthetic capabilities have also been crafted: binding proteins can be engineered with effectively arbitrary specificity and affinity, and multifunctional nanoparticles and gels have been designed to interact in highly specific fashions with cells and tissues. Fearless pursuit of knowledge and solutions across disciplinary boundaries characterizes this nascent discipline of immune engineering, synergizing with immunologists and clinicians to put immunotherapy into practice.
The 2019 symposium will include two poster sessions and four abstract-selected talks. Abstracts should be uploaded on the registration page. Abstract submission deadline is November 15, 2018. Registration closes December 14.
Featuring on Day 1, 1/28, 2019:
Dane Wittrup,, Koch Institute, MIT
IMMUNE BIOLOGY,
7 — Stephanie Dougan (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) HMS, Department of Virology
Shared antigens may be the only option for many patients
T cell affinity low or high TCRs – Augment priming
Radiation plus anti-CD40 induces vigorous T cell priming
TNF family co-stimulatory receptor signaling can be mimicked by IAP antagonists
SMACK – c-IAP12 – IAPi enhances function of many immune cells: B Cells, Dendritic cells,
Pancreatic cancer cell immunologic memory : Primary challenge, re-challenge
IAPi outperforms checkpoint blockade in T cell cold tumors
reduction of tumor burden gencitabine cross-presenting DCs and CD8 T cells – T cell low 6694c2
IAPi is a T cell-dependent immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer: MHC class I and IFN gemma sensing by tumor cells are critical for endogenous anti-tumor immunity and response to checkpoint blockade
T cells are catalytic, they can kill some tumors not all – Genes deleted in tumor cells
Intratumoral phagocytes are critical for endogenous: IAP antagonism increases phagocytosis in vivo
Model: T cells provide antigen specificity for sustained innate immune response
Antigen and adjuvants
12 — Michael Dustin (University of Oxford)
Delivery of T cell Effector function through extracellular vesicles
Laterally mobile ligands track receptor interaction
ICAM-1
Signaling of synapse – Sustain signaling by transient in microclusters TCR related to Invadipodia
Synaptic ectosome biogenisis Model: T cells: DOpamine cascade in germinal cell delivered to synaptic cleft – Effector CD40 – Transfer is cooperative
Synaptic ectosome composition
ESCRT pathway associated with synaptic ectosomes
Locatization, Microscopy (STORM, PALM, GSD)
Updated Model T cells Exosome transport Cytotoxic T cell granules CTLs release extracellular vescicles similar to T Helper with perforin and granzyme – CTL vesicles kill targets
6 — Darrell Irvine (MIT, Koch Institute; HHMI)
Innate immune recognition of glycosylation in nano particle vaccines
HIV Vaccines: Why is it such a challenge
HIV vaccine – Immunogen design – CD4 binding site-targeting
rational for nanoparticles forms of env immunogens
Exploring tumor-immune interactions with genetically engineered Cancer Models – A case of Lung Cancer
Factors controlling tumor progression – genetically-engineered model of lung adenocarcinoma, metastasis causing death
Infiltration of cells: SEQUENCE EXOME – NO TUMOR BURDEN,
Exome sequencing reveals few mutations in KP model
Programmed neoantogen expression in the KP model: Kras, p53 – both are well researched in Lung cancer – immune cell dependent – tumors escape immune response due to immunosuppression – regulatory T cells most important in this model system
tissue specific responses to antigens
Lung Cancer – late stage — Programmed neo-antigen expression
Single cell mRNA sequencing of CD* T cell over time – sort cells, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks – progression of single cell similarity lymph cells vs lungs cells – cell identities – transcription activation of dysfunction in cells
SIIN+ CD8 T cells show markers of dysfunction over time – up regulated signs of exhaustion,
T cells becomes exhausted, checkpoint inhibitors beyond a certain point – has no capacity –
Interrogating markers of T cell dysfunction – chance biology of cells by CRISPR Cas9 – EGR2 at 2 weeks dysfunctioning is reduced – presence of EDR2 mutant class plays a role in cell metabolism – cell becomes more functional by modification protocols
Effects of CRISPR-mediated vs Combinatorial effects of CRISPR-mediated mutation of inhibitory models
8 — Max Krummel (University of California, San Francisco)
Dynamic Emergent behavior in Immune Systems
T cells are captured on tumor margins (without desired cytotoxicity)
Myeloid cells Underlie Intratumoral T cell capture
Anti tumor (CD4 CD8) vs Pro-tumor (CD9)
If many cells predicting Outcome more favorable – cellular abundance
Alternative T Cell reactions in Tissue: T-Helper 1, T-Helper 2
Gene expression association between two genes:
NK and cDC1 numbers are tightly linked and correlated with response to checkpoint blockage
A CD4-Enhaced Class of Melanoma Patients Also can be Checkpoint
CD4 T cells in Cancer – control tumors on their on
If high ICOS and CD4
Stimulate CD4: pull out of lymph nodes cells mCD301B
CD4 T cell proliferation but they don’t make PD1 ICOS CD4T
CD4 – required: Regulatory T Cells control CS4-dependent Tumor control via Lymph Node depletion (dLN)
If CD4 depleted, Lymph Node (LN) connected
Regulatory of PD1 ICOS CD4T
CD8 CD4 Tumor Affinity
Melanoma – T-reg hi or low – Responders are T-reg hi they have CD8
Existing Paired presence of T-reg, together with cDC2 number classifies Pt with better CD4
In Head and Neck: DC needed to stimulate immune response by CD4
Architypes of Immune systems in Tumors – Generally
CLASS I, II, III, IV – phynotypic
IMMUNE “ACCOMODATION” ARCHYTYPES: MYELOID TUNING OF ARCHITYPES
Myeloid function and composition
11 — Mikael Pittet (Massachusetts General Hospital)
Myeloid Cells in Cancer
complexity of Myeloid
Myeloid cells for cancer therapy: Outcomes good and bad: Tumor suppressing vs Tumor Promoting
Myeloid and immunotherapy
aPD-1 mAbs do not bind IL-12+DCs (scRNAseq): DC Classical and PlasmaCytoid (Allon Klein)
Cross-presenting cDC1 are essential for effector T cells
How can we raise the curve and increase the number of long-term survivors
Understanding the role of tumor-resident DC
Accumulation of CD103 DC independent of T cells
Regression tumor mount T cell response independent of DC1 DC
Induction of anti-tumor immunity is independent of the canonical
Single cell RNA-Seq reveal new subset to regressiong tumors and stimulate T cells via non-conventional
Working hypothesis: productive anti-tumor immunity depends on multiple tumor-resident DC subsets
5 — Melody Swartz (University of Chicago)
Lymphangiogenesis and immunomodulation
Lymphangiogenesisfor in Inflammation
Immunosuppression drives metastasis
promotion of resolution in disease progression
Tumors uses lymphatic system vessels
Tumor VEGF-C enhances immune cell interactions with lymphatic system
Lymphangiogenesis promore immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment
Recruitment of immune cells system: Dendritic Cells,
Lymphangiogenesis melanomas – highly responsive to immunotherapy : Vaccination
Lymphangiogenesis promote antigen spreading
Lymphangiogenesis potentiation: CCL21, CCR7
Lymphangiogenesis attractive to Native T cells, in VEGF-C tumors
T cell homing inhibitors vs block T cell egress inhibitors – Immunotherapy induces T cell killing
Allergic airway inflammation is driven lung and lymph node Lymphangiogenesis
Innate Immune cell infiltration reduced
Memory recall responses reflect adaptive immunity
pathology exacerbated with VEGFR-3 blockade response of memory recall cell is enhanced
VEGFR-3 signaling shifts T call balance, and CCL@1, from Lymph nodes to Lung
Differential changes in T cell balance between lung vs adaptive immune response to allergic airway inflammation
Lymphangiogenesis in the lung, competition with adaptive immune response to allergic airway inflammation in the lung
4 — Cathy Wu, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, HMS – CoFounder of NEON
Building better personal cancer vaccines
Vaccine: up to 20 personalized neoantigens as SLPs with adjuvant (polyICLC)
high risk melanoma – RESULTS: new immune responses – new responses mutiple immune responses CD4 & CD8: mutated vs Wild type differences
Enduring complete radiographic responses after Neovax + alpha-PD-1 treatment (anti-PD-1)
NeoVax vs IVAC MutaNOME
Ex vivo responses to assay peptide pools – immune response identified
NeoVax: ‘warming’ a cold tumor
immune cell infiltration – not studied in Glioblastoma which is a pooled tumor: TCR repertoire and MHC. Available materials: PBMC vs Fresh frozen and FFPE tumor material: Blood va FF brain tissue sequencing
Pt 8 neoantigen-specific clonotypesID’s – reactive T cells track to the brain after vaccination
Single cells from brain tissue vs single cells from neoantigen specific T cells – intratumoral neoantigen-specific T cells: mutARGAP35-specific T cell identified at site of disease – breakthrough for Brain Tumor #vaccine based neoantigen-specific T cell at intracranial site
VAX steering the Immune system
commission at Dana Farber – Prediction algorithms of denovo neoantigen targets: Newly profiled peptides to train a model vs peptide in the DB – Single vs Multi-allele HLA peptide sequencing by MassSpectroscopy
Mono-allelic MS data reveals novel motifs and sub-motifs
Endogenous signals contribution to predictive power
NeuroNets Algoriths : Integrative models identify tumor-presented epitopes more accurately than models without training like NeuroNets
5778 class I peptides from 4 cancers class I allele
The human body is often described as being ‘at war’. By this, it is meant that the body is constantly under attack from things that are trying to do it harm. These include toxins, bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. The human immune system is one of the most effective defense mechanisms known to nature and can sometimes can be overwhelmed by disease. Yet, on occasions our immune systems turn on our own tissue and attack it which can trigger conditions such as type I diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
In the case of rheumatoid arthritis, immune cells start to attack tissues in the joins which causes them to become painful, stiff and swollen. It is known that one third of those who develop rheumatoid arthritis, feel the horrible effects of the disease within two years of its onset. Immunologist Adrian Hayday, which is a researcher at Francis Crick Institute of London says that the current treatment for rheumatoid arthritis require patients to take the drugs for the rest of their lives. But, researchers such as Hayday found an unexpected ally in the battle against autoimmune disease, cancer.
However, there is a positive consequence to the discovery that cancer immunotherapies have the effect of triggering autoimmune diseases and for the first-time rheumatoid arthritis can be detected at the earliest stages. At present, people are not diagnosed with the condition until symptoms have already made their lives so unpleasant, they have gone to see their doctors. As a result, research backed by Cancer Research UK and Arthritis Research UK, has been launched with the aim of uncovering the roots of autoimmune disease from research on cancer patients.
The scientists mentioned stress that their work is only now start and warn that it will still take several years of research to get substantial results. Nevertheless, uncovering the first stages of an autoimmune disease emerging in a person’s body should give researchers a vital lead in ultimately developing treatments that will prevent or halt a range of conditions that currently cause a great deal of misery and require constant medication.
Our immune defenses consist of a range of cells and proteins that notice invading micro-organisms and attack them. The first line of defense, yet, consists of simple physical barriers similar to skin, which blocks invaders from entering your body. When this defense is penetrated, they are attacked by a number of agents. The key cells, leukocytes seek out and destroy disease-causing organisms. Neutrophils rush to the site of an infection and attack invading bacteria. Helper T-cells give instructions to other cells while killer T-cells punch holes in infected cells so that their contents ooze out. After these macrophages clean up the mess left behind.
Another significant agent is the B-cell, which produces antibodies that lock on to sites on the surface of bacteria or viruses and immobilize them until macrophages consume them. These cells can live a long time and can answer quickly following a second exposure to the same infections. In conclusion, suppressor T-cells act when an infection has been distributed with and the immune system needs to be reassured, the killer cells may keep on attacking, as they do in autoimmune diseases. By slowing down the immune system, regulatory T-cells prevent damage to “good” cells.
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
NIH grantees win 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
The Nobel Prize medallion.Nobel Foundation
The 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to National Institutes of Health grantee 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, for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said, “by stimulating the inherent ability of our immune system to attack tumor cells this year’s Nobel Laureates have established an entirely new principle for cancer therapy.”
Dr. Allison discovered that a particular protein (CTLA-4) acts as a braking system, preventing full activation of the immune system when a cancer is emerging. By delivering an antibody that blocks that protein, Allison showed the brakes could be released. The discovery has led to important developments in cancer drugs called checkpoint inhibitors and dramatic responses to previously untreatable cancers. Dr. Honjo discovered a protein on immune cells and revealed that it also operates as a brake, but with a different mechanism of action.
“Jim’s work was pivotal for cancer therapy by enlisting our own immune systems to launch an attack on cancer and arrest its development,” said NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. “NIH is proud to have supported this groundbreaking research.”
Dr. Allison has received continuous funding from NIH since 1979, receiving more than $13.7 million primarily from NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
“This work has led to remarkably effective, sometime curative, therapy for patients with advanced cancer, who we were previously unable to help,” said NCI Director Ned Sharpless, M.D. “Their findings have ushered in the era of cancer immunotherapy, which along with surgery, radiation and cytotoxic chemotherapy, represents a ‘fourth modality’ for treating cancer. A further understanding of the biology underlying the immune system and cancer has the potential to help many more patients.”
“Dr. Allison’s elegant and groundbreaking work in basic immunology over four decades and its important applicability to cancer is a vivid demonstration of the critical nature of interdisciplinary biomedical research supported by NIH,” says NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.
About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.
Dr. Lev-Ari covered in person the following curated articles about James Allison, PhD since his days at University of California, Berkeley, including the prizes awarded prior to the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology.
2018 Albany Medical Center Prize in Medicine and Biomedical Research goes to NIH’s Dr. Rosenberg and fellow immunotherapy researchers James P. Allison, Ph.D., and Carl H. June, M.D.
New Class of Immune System Stimulants: Cyclic Di-Nucleotides (CDN): Shrink Tumors and bolster Vaccines, re-arm the Immune System’s Natural Killer Cells, which attack Cancer Cells and Virus-infected Cells
Immunologist James P. Allison today shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for groundbreaking work he conducted on cancer immunotherapy at UC Berkeley during his 20 years as director of the campus’s Cancer Research Laboratory.
James Allison, who for 20 years was a UC Berkeley immunologist conducting fundamental research on cancer, is now at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.
Now at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Allison shared the award with Tasuku Honjo of Kyoto University in Japan “for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation.”
Allison, 70, conducted basic research on how the immune system – in particular, a cell called a T cell – fights infection. His discoveries led to a fundamentally new strategy for treating malignancies that unleashes the immune system to kill cancer cells. A monoclonal antibody therapy he pioneered was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 to treat malignant melanoma, and spawned several related therapies now being used against lung, prostate and other cancers.
“Because this approach targets immune cells rather than specific tumors, it holds great promise to thwart diverse cancers,” the Lasker Foundation wrote when it awarded Allison its 2015 Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award.
Allison’s work has already benefited thousands of people with advanced melanoma, a disease that used to be invariably fatal within a year or so of diagnosis. The therapy he conceived has resulted in elimination of cancer in a significant fraction of patients for a decade and counting, and it appears likely that many of these people are cured.
“Targeted therapies don’t cure cancer, but immunotherapy is curative, which is why many consider it the biggest advance in a generation,” Allison said in a 2015 interview. “Clearly, immunotherapy now has taken its place along with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation as a reliable and objective way to treat cancer.”
“We are thrilled to see Jim’s work recognized by the Nobel Committee,” said Russell Vance, the current director of the Cancer Research Laboratory and a UC Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology. “We congratulate him on this highly deserved honor. This award is a testament to the incredible impact that the fundamental research Jim conducted at Berkeley has had on the lives of cancer patients”
“I don’t know if I could have accomplished this work anywhere else than Berkeley,” Allison said. “There were a lot of smart people to work with, and it felt like we could do almost anything. I always tell people that it was one of the happiest times of my life, with the academic environment, the enthusiasm, the students, the faculty.”
In this video about UC Berkeley’s new Immunotherapeutics and Vaccine Research Initiative (IVRI), Allison discusses his groundbreaking work on cancer immunotherapy.
In fact, Allison was instrumental in creating the research environment of the current Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley as well as the department’s division of immunology, in which he served stints as chair and division head during his time at Berkeley, said David Raulet, director of Berkeley’s Immunotherapeutics and Vaccine Research Initiative (IVRI).
“His actions helped create the superb research environment here, which is so conducive to making the fundamental discoveries that will be the basis of the next generation of medical breakthroughs,” Raulet said.
Self vs. non-self
Allison joined the UC Berkeley faculty as a professor of molecular and cell biology and director of the Cancer Research Laboratory in 1985. An immunologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Texas, Austin, he focused on a type of immune system cell called the T cell or T lymphocyte, which plays a key role in fighting off bacterial and viral infections as well as cancer.
Supercharging the immune system to cure disease: immunotherapy research at UC Berkeley. (UC Berkeley video by Roxanne Makasdjian and Stephen McNally)
At the time, most doctors and scientists believed that the immune system could not be exploited to fight cancer, because cancer cells look too much like the body’s own cells, and any attack against cancer cells would risk killing normal cells and creating serious side effects.
“The community of cancer biologists was not convinced that you could even use the immune system to alter cancer’s outcome, because cancer was too much like self,” said Matthew “Max” Krummel, who was a graduate student and postdoctoral fellow with Allison in the 1990s and is now a professor of pathology and a member of the joint immunology group at UCSF. “The dogma at the time was, ‘Don’t even bother.’ ”
“What was heady about the moment was that we didn’t really listen to the dogma, we just did it,” Krummel added. Allison, in particular, was a bit “irreverent, but in a productive way. He didn’t suffer fools easily.” This attitude rubbed off on the team.
Trying everything they could in mice to tweak the immune system, Krummel and Allison soon found that a protein receptor called CTLA-4 seemed to be holding T cells back, like a brake in a car.
Postdoctoral fellow Dana Leach then stepped in to see if blocking the receptor would unleash the immune system to actually attack a cancerous tumor. In a landmark paper published in Science in 1996, Allison, Leach and Krummel showed not only that antibodies against CTLA-4 released the brake and allowed the immune system to attack the tumors, but that the technique was effective enough to result in long-term disappearance of the tumors.
“When Dana showed me the results, I was really surprised,” Allison said. “It wasn’t that the anti-CTLA-4 antibodies slowed the tumors down. The tumors went away.”
After Allison himself replicated the experiment, “that’s when I said, OK, we’ve got something here.”
Checkpoint blockade
The discovery led to a concept called “checkpoint blockade.” This holds that the immune system has many checkpoints designed to prevent it from attacking the body’s own cells, which can lead to autoimmune disease. As a result, while attempts to rev up the immune system are like stepping on the gas, they won’t be effective unless you also release the brakes.
James Allison in 1993, when he was conducting research at UC Berkeley on a promising immunotherapy now reaching fruition. (Jane Scherr photo)
“The temporary activation of the immune system though ‘checkpoint blockade’ provides a window of opportunity during which the immune system is mobilized to attack and eliminate tumors,” Vance said.
Allison spent the next few years amassing data in mice to show that anti-CTLA-4 antibodies work, and then, in collaboration with a biotech firm called Medarex, developed human antibodies that showed promise in early clinical trials against melanoma and other cancers. The therapy was acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2011 and approved by the FDA as ipilimumab (trade name Yervoy), which is now used to treat skin cancers that have metastasized or that cannot be removed surgically.
Meanwhile, Allison left UC Berkeley in 2004 for Memorial Sloan Kettering research center in New York to be closer to the drug companies shepherding his therapy through clinical trials, and to explore in more detail how checkpoint blockade works.
“Berkeley was my favorite place, and if I could have stayed there, I would have,” he said. “But my research got to the point where all the animal work showed that checkpoint blockade had a lot of potential in people, and working with patients at Berkeley wasn’t possible. There’s no hospital, no patients.”
Thanks to Allison’s doggedness, anti-CTLA-4 therapy is now an accepted therapy for cancer and it opened the floodgates for a slew of new immunotherapies, Krummel said. There now are several hundred ongoing clinical trials involving monoclonal antibodies to one or more receptors that inhibit T cell activity, sometimes combined with lower doses of standard chemotherapy.
Antibodies against one such receptor, PD-1, which Honjo discovered in 1992, have given especially impressive results. Allison’s initial findings can be credited for prompting researchers, including Allison himself, to carry out the studies that have demonstrated the potent anti-cancer effects of PD-1 antibodies. In 2015, the FDA approved anti-PD-1 therapy for malignant melanoma, and has since approved it for non-small-cell lung, gastric and several other cancers.
Science magazine named cancer immunotherapy its breakthrough of 2013 because that year, “clinical trials … cemented its potential in patients and swayed even the skeptics. The field hums with stories of lives extended: the woman with a grapefruit-size tumor in her lung from melanoma, alive and healthy 13 years later; the 6-year-old near death from leukemia, now in third grade and in remission; the man with metastatic kidney cancer whose disease continued fading away even after treatment stopped.”
Allison pursued more clinical trials for immunotherapy at Sloan-Kettering and then in 2012 returned to his native Texas.
Born in Alice, Texas, on Aug. 7, 1948, Allison earned a B.S. in microbiology in 1969 and a Ph.D. in biological science in 1973 from the University of Texas, Austin.
Live Coverage: MedCity Converge 2018 Philadelphia: AI in Cancer and Keynote Address
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD
3.3.4 Live Coverage: MedCity Converge 2018 Philadelphia: AI in Cancer and Keynote Address, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair
8:30 AM -9:15
Practical Applications of AI in Cancer
We are far from machine learning dictating clinical decision making, but AI has important niche applications in oncology. Hear from a panel of innovative startups and established life science players about how machine learning and AI can transform different aspects in healthcare, be it in patient recruitment, data analysis, drug discovery or care delivery.
Ayan: working at IBM and Thompon Rueters with structured datasets and having gone through his own cancer battle, he is now working in healthcare AI which has an unstructured dataset(s)
Carla: collecting medical images over the world, mainly tumor and calculating tumor volumetrics
Tufia: drug resistant breast cancer clinician but interested in AI and healthcareIT at Mayo
John: taking large scale datasets but a machine learning skeptic
moderator: how has imaging evolved?
Carla: ten times images but not ten times radiologists so stressed field needs help with image analysis; they have seen measuring lung tumor volumetrics as a therapeutic diagnostic has worked
moderator: how has AI affected patient recruitment?
Tufia: majority of patients are receiving great care but AI can offer profiles and determine which patients can benefit from tertiary care;
John: 1980 paper on no free lunch theorem; great enthusiasm about optimization algortihisms fell short in application; can extract great information from e.g. images
moderator: how is AI for healthcare delivery working at mayo?
Tufia: for every hour with patient two hours of data mining. for care delivery hope to use the systems to leverage the cognitive systems to do the data mining
John: problem with irreproducible research which makes a poor dataset: also these care packages are based on population data not personalized datasets; challenges to AI is moving correlation to causation
Carla: algorithisms from on healthcare network is not good enough, Google tried and it failed
John: curation very important; good annotation is needed; needed to go in and develop, with curators, a systematic way to curate medial records; need standardization and reproducibility; applications in radiometrics can be different based on different data collection machines; developed a machine learning model site where investigators can compare models on a hub; also need to communicate with patients on healthcare information and quality information
Ayan: Australia and Canada has done the most concerning AI and lifescience, healthcare space; AI in most cases is cognitive learning: really two types of companies 1) the Microsofts, Googles, and 2) the startups that may be more pure AI
Final Notes: We are at a point where collecting massive amounts of healthcare related data is simple, rapid, and shareable. However challenges exist in quality of datasets, proper curation and annotation, need for collaboration across all healthcare stakeholders including patients, and dissemination of useful and accurate information
9:15 AM–9:45 AM
Opening Keynote: Dr. Joshua Brody, Medical Oncologist, Mount Sinai Health System
The Promise and Hype of Immunotherapy
Immunotherapy is revolutionizing oncology care across various types of cancers, but it is also necessary to sort the hype from the reality. In his keynote, Dr. Brody will delve into the history of this new therapy mode and how it has transformed the treatment of lymphoma and other diseases. He will address the hype surrounding it, why so many still don’t respond to the treatment regimen and chart the way forward—one that can lead to more elegant immunotherapy combination paths and better outcomes for patients.
hodgkin’s lymphoma best responder to PD1 therapy (nivolumab) but hepatic adverse effects
CAR-T (chimeric BCR and TCR); a long process which includes apheresis, selection CD3/CD28 cells; viral transfection of the chimeric; purification
complete remissions of B cell lymphomas (NCI trial) and long term remissions past 18 months
side effects like cytokine release (has been controlled); encephalopathy (he uses a hand writing test to see progression of adverse effect)
Vaccines
teaching the immune cells as PD1 inhibition exhausting T cells so a vaccine boost could be an adjuvant to PD1 or checkpoint therapy
using Flt3L primed in-situ vaccine (using a Toll like receptor agonist can recruit the dendritic cells to the tumor and then activation of T cell response); therefore vaccine does not need to be produced ex vivo; months after the vaccine the tumor still in remission
versus rituximab, which can target many healthy B cells this in-situ vaccine strategy is very specific for the tumorigenic B cells
HoWEVER they did see resistant tumor cells which did not overexpress PD-L1 but they did discover a novel checkpoint (cannot be disclosed at this point)
Please follow on Twitter using the following #hashtags and @pharma_BI
#MCConverge
#AI
#cancertreatment
#immunotherapy
#healthIT
#innovation
#precisionmedicine
#healthcaremodels
#personalizedmedicine
#healthcaredata
And at the following handles:
@pharma_BI
@medcitynews
Please see related articles on Live Coverage of Previous Meetings on this Open Access Journal
What does this mean for Immunotherapy? FDA put a temporary hold on Juno’s JCAR015, Three Death of Celebral Edema in CAR-T Clinical Trial and Kite Pharma announced Phase II portion of its CAR-T ZUMA-1 trial
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.
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.
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Article ID #245: 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. Published on 10/4/2017
WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman
UPDATED on 2/21/2021
The Announcement of the 2021 Dan David Prize Laureates – YouTube – PRIZE $1MM per Winner for contributors to CAR-T MOA leading to development of immunotherapy anti cancer drugs
Prof. Zelig Eshhar – Weitzmann Institute his student Arie S. Belldegrun was CEO at Kate Pharmaceutics sold to Gilead for $12Bil
Prof. Carl June of UPenn
Steven Rosenberg, PhD, NIH
UPDATED on 10/15/2020
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 John Carroll Editor & Founder Amir Nashat knew he had years of preclinical work to do when he talked to me at the beginning of 2019 about Dewpoint Therapeutics and its rare focus on the role bimolecular condensates could play in crafting a wide-ranging pipeline of therapeutics.
The Cambridge, MA-based Dewpoint team, which will now double in size over the next year, doesn’t have a late-stage preclinical program it can shove into the clinic. The biotech is investing in neurodegeneration, cancer, cardiovascular and other areas for a platform that could, eventually, have extensive applications. But asked about a timeline to proof-of-concept data, Nashat frankly estimates that it will take 4-5 years to birth some hard human data. The money should get them through 3 years and a considerable de-risking approach to their preclinical efforts
The CSO is Mark Murcko, an experienced and well known startup player.
Mark Murcko “When I think about new companies a lot of it is about timing; is it too soon or too late?” Murcko notes enthusiastically in our interview. “Is there enough information available to make you think you can take that and use it toward new drugs? Five years ago it was too early, too nascent.”
Now, Murcko adds, seems like a great time to give this a go.
Gilead is writing off its anti-BCMA CAR-T for multiple myeloma, eliminating one of the many efforts focused on that target and driving a big part of the company’s $820 million impairment charge for R&D in the 4th quarter of last year. But this could just be a taste of what’s to come.
A $12 billion buyout of Kite Pharma in 2017 brought with it the CAR-T therapy Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) and a foothold in immuno-oncology. But last year’s results make clear that return on that investment will be slow to materialize.
Buried in among Gilead’s fourth-quarter results statement is a line revealing it has abandoned an anti-BCMA cell therapy for multiple myeloma, part of its $12 billion acquisition of Kite Pharma.
The failed KITE-585 program and other costs associated with the acquisition resulted in a whopping $820 million impairment charge in the quarter and add to analyst speculation that with sales of approved CAR-T Yescarta still disappointing, Gilead may have to write down the value of the Kite deal entirely, according to a Bloomberg report.
Gilead’s decision to drop the KITE-585 CAR-T program reflects the increasing competition in the anti-BCMA category and doesn’t come out of the blue. The company said at the J.P. Morgan conference (JPM) last month that it would only press ahead with development of KITE-585 if its profile was very compelling.
Robert W. Baird & Co. analyst Brian Skorney says Gilead may have to write down the deal, which the company values at $11.9 billion. That means lowering the projections on its balance sheet, if the multi billion-dollar sales Wall Street expects don’t materialize. The long-time bull cut his rating on the stock to neutral in July following the management exodus.
It’s also clear that public investors did quite well in these deals – unlike some outcomes, both private and public investors can only be happy with these deals. Kite’s IPO investors made over a whopping 10x, and Juno’s nearly a 3.6x (in 3 years, so still a very strong public market return). Even the follow-on financing participants made handsome returns: both Kite’s and Juno’s follow-on financings about 4-6 months prior to acquisition delivered a 2x return in a short period. What’s clear is that participating at any point only these price curves was a positive for investors. Obviously that doesn’t always happen, but great to see when it does.
A final takeaway is that there is “no one size fits all” for how to build business models that can work in biotech these days, even to get to similar product and patient outcomes. While Kite and Juno have remarkably similar products, similar platforms, and similar overall acquisition valuations, the stories were built quite differently when it comes to financing their growth.
Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.
Kite’s Yescarta™ (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) Becomes First CAR T Therapy Approved by the FDA for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy
— Manufacturing Success Rate of 99 Percent in ZUMA-1 Pivotal Trial with a Median 17 Day Turnaround Time —
CAR T therapy is a breakthrough in hematologic cancer treatment in which a patient’s own T cells are engineered to seek and destroy cancer cells. CAR T therapy is manufactured specifically for each individual patient.
“The FDA approval of Yescarta is a landmark for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. This approval would not have been possible without the courageous commitment of patients and clinicians, as well as the ongoing dedication of Kite’s employees,” said Arie Belldegrun, MD, FACS, Founder of Kite. “We must also recognize the FDA for their ability to embrace and support transformational new technologies that treat life-threatening illnesses. We believe this is only the beginning for CAR T therapies.”
“Today is an important day for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who have run out of options and have been waiting for new treatments that may help them in their fight against cancer,” said John Milligan, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Gilead Sciences. “With the combined innovation, talent and drive of the Kite and Gilead teams, we will rapidly advance cell therapy research and aim to bring new options to patients with many other types of cancer.”
The list price of Yescarta in the United States is $373,000.
Yescarta has been granted Priority Medicines (PRIME) regulatory support for DLBCL in the European Union. A Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for axicabtagene ciloleucel is currently under review with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and potential approval is expected in the first half of 2018.
The approval of Yescarta is supported by data from the ZUMA-1 pivotal trial. In this study, 72 percent of patients treated with a single infusion of Yescarta (n=101) responded to therapy (overall response rate) including 51 percent of patients who had no detectable cancer remaining (complete remission; 95% CI: 41, 62). At a median follow-up of 7.9 months, patients who had achieved a complete remission had not reached the estimated median duration of response (95% CI: 8.1 months, not estimable [NE]).
In the study, 13 percent of patients experienced grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 31 percent experienced neurologic toxicities. The most common (≥ 10%) Grade 3 or higher reactions include febrile neutropenia, fever, CRS, encephalopathy, infections-pathogen unspecified, hypotension, hypoxia and lung infections. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 52% of patients and included CRS, neurologic toxicity, prolonged cytopenias (including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia), and serious infections. Fatal cases of CRS and neurologic toxicity occurred. FDA approved Yescarta with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.
Yescarta Indication
Yescarta is a CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T cell immunotherapy indicated for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma.
Yescarta is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for three out of every five cases. In the United States each year, there are approximately 7,500 patients with refractory DLBCL who are eligible for CAR T therapy. Historically, when treated with the current standard of care, patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma had a median overall survival of approximately six months, with only seven percent attaining a complete response. Currently, patients with large B-cell lymphoma in second or later lines of therapy have poor outcomes and greater unmet need, since nearly half of them either do not respond or relapse shortly after transplant.
“With CAR T therapy, we are reengineering a patient’s own immune system to detect and kill cancer cells, and the results have been impressive,” said Frederick L. Locke, MD, ZUMA-1 Co-Lead Investigator and Vice Chair of the Department of Blood and Marrow Transplant and Cellular Immunotherapy at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. “Many of the patients that received CAR T therapy had already relapsed several times with traditional treatments such as chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Now, thanks to this new therapy many patients are in remission for months.”
“This therapy is a new option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who have run out of treatment options and face a dire prognosis,” said Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS). “Early on, LLS recognized the potential of CAR T therapy and we are proud to be part of making this historic approval possible.”
“Engineered cell therapies like Yescarta represent the potential for a changing treatment paradigm for cancer patients,” said David Chang, MD, PhD, Worldwide Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer at Kite. “Together, Gilead and Kite will accelerate studies of CAR T therapy in multiple blood cancers and advance other cell therapy approaches for solid tumors, with the goal of helping patients with diverse cancers benefit from this new era of personalized cancer therapy.”
ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)
ABOUT Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma
ABOUT the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun – Interviewed by Globes
ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes
ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel
I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point is “one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.”
I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point should have been a TEVA commercialization effort. It is a regrettable reality that the development and the manufacturing will not benefit the State of Israel, home of the Weitzman Institute where the Patentable invention took place by Prof. Zelig Eshhar.
It is to be acknowledged that for CAR-T – the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry (Juno has related process) – is bringing to the Oncology arena a NOVEL treatment for hematological malignancies cancer patients
I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that the Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. It is exactly, therefore, all need to acknowledge that the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun is inseparable from the breakthrough invention of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to develop the drug from the Lab bench to the FDA accelerated process of Drug approval.
The Biotech industry in Israel needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Arie Belldegrun and with his entrepreneur acumen, keenness and depth of perception, discernment, discrimination especially in practical aspects of Translation Medicine, Clinical Research, Clinical Trial Design and abilities to engage in innovating the FDA processes.
The Biotech industry in US needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to carry the scientific gravitas and the creativity to become inventors of novel drugs.
ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)
Pioneers of Cancer Cell Therapy: Turbocharging the Immune System to Battle Cancer Cells — Success in Hematological Cancers vs. Solid Tumors
FDA has approved the world’s first CAR-T therapy, Novartis for Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma, no approved drug and Canakinumab for Lung Cancer (may be?)
ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes
Kite Pharma was a $12b missed opportunity for Israel – Interview with Professor Zelig Eshhar
Some Israeli media headlines depicted Kite as an Israeli exit. But it is a US company that does no business in Israel and has no employees here.
Professor Zelig Eshhar is the man who registered the patent on the cancer treatment drug developed by Kite Pharma, recently acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion.
“Globes”: Do you believe that any party in Israel could have financed the product and brought it where it is today?
Eshhar: “On the one hand, yes. The level of investment in the product before it reached Nasdaq was something that an Israeli concern could certainly have financed. On the other hand, Kite Pharma founder Professor Arie Belldegrun, with his energy and connections, brought it to a completely different place (Eshhar previously tried to interest various concerns in Israel in financing the drug, but all of them told him that it was too early, or that the product was not effective enough, E.T.).
Was the development already in its final form in the 1980s?
“Almost. I went to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where I met for the first time Professor Steven Rosenberg, who later became the first doctor to conduct clinical trials with the technology. Rosenberg heard about my technology, and offered me exceptional conditions. We set up a team there, and had the best of everything. I only wish I had it now.”
They say that Belldegrun didn’t want the product at first. Today, he’s devoting all his efforts to it.
“When Arie founded Cougar Biotechnology, which developed a drug for prostate cancer, and was eventually sold to Johnson & Johnson for $1 billion, I contacted him and offered him the technology, but he was busy with Cougar’s product, and maybe didn’t think that he had enough capital for such a production. Only after he sold Cougar did he get back to me with an offer to buy the rights to my patent. At that time (2009-2010), the technology was already arousing great interest, and there were negotiations with several large companies.” (from an April 2015 “Globes” interview with Eshhar, who was awarded the Israel Prize).
Israelis can be very provincial. In at least some of the media headlines, Kite Pharma was portrayed as a “huge Israeli exit,” and the impression was given that it was an Israeli company. The truth is very different. Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company; it is a 100% US company. It does no business in Israel; its nearly $12 billion exit has no significance whatsoever for the Israeli economy, and will contribute nothing to it: no jobs, and the tax contribution will be marginal, and certainly not on the scale of Mobileye, for example. Let me say it again: Kite Pharma does not have even one employee in Israel (and has no reason to employ anyone here), and certainly does not pay taxes in Israel. There are no Israelis on the company’s management team or board of directors. This is a US company for all intents and purposes. The word “Israel” appears exactly once in the company’s full documents – where registration of the company’s patents is concerned. The fact that every story about the company mentions the small holdings of several Israeli financial institutions in it is a bad joke. Everyone should remember that Israeli financial institutions are of course entitled to invest in any foreign share, such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple Computers, and so forth. Kite Pharma is one of those foreign shares, and nothing more.
Of course, there is cause for pride in the fact that Eshhar, owner of the patent for Kite Pharma’s drug is “one of ours,” i.e. an Israeli researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Another source of pride is Kite Pharma founder and CEO Arie Belldegrun, a graduate of the Hebrew University Medical School who did his post-doctorate at the Weizmann Institute, where he met Eshhar, and Kite Pharma later bought his patent for the cancer drug. Belldegrun was also a director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) until recently, resigning at the peak of that company’s crisis. Beyond this Israeli connection, however, the Kite Pharma exit has no great significance for Israel. All it means is that one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.
It is necessary to realize that while Belldegrun is indeed a big biomedical brain with many achievements in the field, he is a brain that has left Israel, and we all have to ask ourselves why he left, why Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company, and why its (as yet non-existent) product was not developed in Israel and will not be manufactured there. The headline in Israel for the Kite Pharma exit should ask why Israel lost out on it, even though the patent came from Israeli laboratories, albeit with US cooperation.
Belldegrun is likely to keep his experiences on the Teva board of directors to himself. Of all the directors in the company, what he has to say is the most interesting, but he is unlikely to divulge what happened there with the inflated deal with Allergan, and exactly what he said at the board of directors meeting that approved the deal that led Teva into its current major crisis. The Kite Pharma exit and his other exits only highlight the lost opportunity. Kite Pharma, still without a product and without approval for a product, was sold for $11.9 billion in cash. Teva yesterday hit another low point, with a market cap of $16 billion. It is simply inconceivable: a company with an enormous potential, but no product, is worth three quarters of a huge veteran company with at least dozens of products, including products in the ethical drug sector. Kite Pharma is actually one of the indirect reasons for Teva’s decline – for the fact that Teva, which could have been a hothouse for developments like Copaxone, chose a huge inflated gamble on the generics market – a gamble that is now jeopardizing Teva’s future and very existence.
It is true that developing drugs is a very long process, requires huge amounts of capital, and involves many failures, but Teva decided to neglect it, and when a major company like Teva neglects Israeli developments, there are enough competitors in the pharma industry ready to turn Israeli research into gold. Kite Pharma is one example of this research.
The Weizmann Institute is a fruitful source of biomedical research. According to previous estimates published in “Globes,” the Weizmann Institute gets NIS 1 billion each year in royalties on medical and other developments, amounting to half of its budget. Directly and indirectly, the Weizmann Institute, together with other universities in Israel, is responsible for tens of billions of pharmaceutical sales. Only a few billions of this, however, results from drugs developed in Israel, like Copaxone, and far less than that is also made in Israel. The reports by Yeda R&D Company Ltd., the technology transfer arm of the Weizmann Institute of Science, are top secret, and there is a good reason for that. Exposing them will only highlight the scale of the missed opportunities. Instead of these inventions providing a base for a major pharmaceutical industry here, the commercialization companies are benefiting only the inventors and the Weizmann Institute itself (that is certainly natural and legitimate, and they are entitled to it), even though the research infrastructure from which they sprung is Israeli know-how, as in the case of Eshhar.
Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. When it succeeds, however, the profit is enormous – for the industry, the employees, and the state (provided that some tax is paid). For example, Pfizer’s peak sales of Lipitor, a very popular drug for reducing cholesterol and fat in the bloodstream, reached $11 billion, and its profit on the drug was $9 billion, before competition from a generic version began. In addition to money, a great deal of experience and marketing power is required, and that is the reason why most developments wind up in the hands of major companies like Pfizer, Merck, and others at some stage. After all these qualifying statements, everyone who celebrated Kite Pharma’s exit should weep over it – it is another part of the sale of Israeli know-how overseas for a mess of pottage. Instead of consolidating a splendid pharma industry here, Israel is selling the brains with their know-how to foreigners. More than anything else, Teva’s decline and the Kite Pharma exit epitomize this sad and dangerous trend.
Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 30, 2017
ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel
Israeli investors profit from $11.9b Kite acquisition
Pontifax fund and Israeli institutional investors will profit from the US personalized cancer drug company’s huge sale. Part of the technology was developed at the Weizmann Institute
Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences Inc. has announced that it will acquire US company Kite Pharma Inc., developer of personalized cancer treatment drugs, at a company value of $11.9 billion. This is one of the biggest ever acquisitions of a company whose products have not yet been approved for marketing. The company value for the acquisition reflects a 29% premium on the market price.
Kite Pharma has developed a new method for genetically engineering immune system cells, so that they will make a focused attack on the malignant tumor. The company was founded in the US by Israeli-American Professor Arie Belldegrun, who already has two exits to his credit. He is also a former director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) (whose current value is not much more than the value at which Kite Pharma, a company with no products approved for marketing yet, is being acquired).
A significant part of the technology on which the product is based was developed by Professor Zelig Eshhar of the Weizmann Institute of Science.
Kite Pharma is waiting for marketing approval of its first product, following a successful trial on 100 patients on a very abbreviated track for innovative cancer products. The product was initially designed for treatment of blood cancer, but it is now hoped that its use can later be expanded to treatment of other types of cancer. Gilead is making a big gamble, first of all that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will fulfill its commitment to approve the product, even though the development plan it devised, together with the company, was very short and limited. The second gamble involves the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry.
Speaking about the talks to sell Kite, Prof. Arie Belldegrun told “Globes.” “We handled like in the IDF 669 unit. Nobody knew anything. Nobody heard anything. We held meetings in places where nobody would see us. And before we announced it only five employees knew about it.”
Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 28, 2017
Cancer Therapies: Metabolic, Genomics, Interventional, Immunotherapy and Nanotechnology in Therapy Delivery (Series C Book 2) – on Amazon since 5/18/2017
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa