Funding, Deals & Partnerships: BIOLOGICS & MEDICAL DEVICES; BioMed e-Series; Medicine and Life Sciences Scientific Journal – http://PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Proteovant Therapeutics Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to Develop PROTACs
Reporter:Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
It has been a while since I have added to this series but there have been a plethora of exciting biotech startups in the Philadelphia area, and many new startups combining technology, biotech, and machine learning. One such exciting biotech is Proteovant Therapeutics, which is combining the new PROTAC (Proteolysis-Targeting Chimera) technology with their in house ability to utilize machine learning and artificial intelligence to design these types of compounds to multiple intracellular targets.
PROTACs (which actually is under a trademark name of Arvinus Operations, but is also refered to as Protein Degraders. These PROTACs take advantage of the cell protein homeostatic mechanism of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation, which is a very specific targeted process which regulates protein levels of various transcription factors, protooncogenes, and receptors. In essence this regulated proteolyic process is needed for normal cellular function, and alterations in this process may lead to oncogenesis, or a proteotoxic crisis leading to mitophagy, autophagy and cellular death. The key to this technology is using chemical linkers to associate an E3 ligase with a protein target of interest. E3 ligases are the rate limiting step in marking the proteins bound for degradation by the proteosome with ubiquitin chains.
A review of this process as well as PROTACs can be found elsewhere in articles (and future articles) on this Open Access Journal.
Protevant have made two important collaborations:
Oncopia Therapeutics: came out of University of Michigan Innovation Hub and lab of Shaomeng Wang, who developed a library of BET and MDM2 based protein degraders. In 2020 was aquired by Riovant Sciences.
Riovant Sciences: uses computer aided design of protein degraders
Proteovant Company Description:
Proteovant is a newly launched development-stage biotech company focusing on discovery and development of disease-modifying therapies by harnessing natural protein homeostasis processes. We have recently acquired numerous assets at discovery and development stages from Oncopia, a protein degradation company. Our lead program is on track to enter IND in 2021. Proteovant is building a strong drug discovery engine by combining deep drugging expertise with innovative platforms including Roivant’s AI capabilities to accelerate discovery and development of protein degraders to address unmet needs across all therapeutic areas. The company has recently secured $200M funding from SK Holdings in addition to investment from Roivant Sciences. Our current therapeutic focus includes but is not limited to oncology, immunology and neurology. We remain agnostic to therapeutic area and will expand therapeutic focus based on opportunity. Proteovant is expanding its discovery and development teams and has multiple positions in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, DMPK, bioinformatics and CMC at many levels. Our R&D organization is located close to major pharmaceutical companies in Eastern Pennsylvania with a second site close to biotech companies in Boston area.
The ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) is responsible for maintaining protein homeostasis. Targeted protein degradation by the UPS is a cellular process that involves marking proteins and guiding them to the proteasome for destruction. We leverage this physiological cellular machinery to target and destroy disease-causing proteins.
Unlike traditional small molecule inhibitors, our approach is not limited by the classic “active site” requirements. For example, we can target transcription factors and scaffold proteins that lack a catalytic pocket. These classes of proteins, historically, have been very difficult to drug. Further, we selectively degrade target proteins, rather than isozymes or paralogous proteins with high homology. Because of the catalytic nature of the interactions, it is possible to achieve efficacy at lower doses with prolonged duration while decreasing dose-limiting toxicities.
Biological targets once deemed “undruggable” are now within reach.
Roivant develops transformative medicines faster by building technologies and developing talent in creative ways, leveraging the Roivant platform to launch “Vants” – nimble and focused biopharmaceutical and health technology companies. These Vants include Proteovant but also Dermovant, ImmunoVant,as well as others.
Roivant’s drug discovery capabilities include the leading computational physics-based platform for in silico drug design and optimization as well as machine learning-based models for protein degradation.
The integration of our computational and experimental engines enables the rapid design of molecules with high precision and fidelity to address challenging targets for diseases with high unmet need.
Our current modalities include small molecules, heterobifunctionals and molecular glues.
Roivant Unveils Targeted Protein Degradation Platform
– First therapeutic candidate on track to enter clinical studies in 2021
– Computationally-designed degraders for six targets currently in preclinical development
– Acquisition of Oncopia Therapeutics and research collaboration with lab of Dr. Shaomeng Wang at the University of Michigan to add diverse pipeline of current and future compounds
– Clinical-stage degraders will provide foundation for multiple new Vants in distinct disease areas
– Platform supported by $200 million strategic investment from SK Holdings
Other articles in this Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene on this Online Open Access Journal include:
A laboratory for the use of AI for drug development has been launched in collaboration with Pfizer, Teva, AstraZeneca, Mark and Amazon
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
AION Labs unites pharma, technology and funds companies including IBF to invest in startups to integrate developments in cloud computing and artificial intelligence to improve drug development capabilities. An alliance of four leading pharmaceutical companies – AION Labs , the first innovation lab of its kind in the world and a pioneer in the process of adopting cloud technologies, artificial intelligence and computer science to solve the R&D challenges of the pharma industry, today announces its launch. AstraZeneca , Mark , Pfizer and Teva – and two leading companies in the field of high-tech and biotech investments, respectively – AWS ( Amazon Web Services Inc ) and the Israeli investment fund IBF ( Israel Biotech Fund ) – which joined together to establish groundbreaking ventures Through artificial intelligence and computer science to change the way new therapies are discovered and developed. “We are excited to launch the new innovation lab in favor of discoveries of drugs and medical devices using groundbreaking computational tools,” said Matti Gil, CEO of AION Labs. We are prepared and ready to make a difference in the process of therapeutic discoveries and their development. With a strong pool of talent from Israel and the world, cloud technology and artificial intelligence at the heart of our activities and a significant commitment by the State of Israel, we are ready to contribute to the health and well-being of the human race and promote industry in Israel. I thank the partners for the trust, and it is an honor for me to lead such a significant initiative. ” In addition, AION Labs has announced a strategic partnership with X BioMed , an independent biomedical research institute operating in Heidelberg, Germany. BioMed X has a proven track record in advancing research innovations in the field of biomedicine at the interface between academic research and the pharmaceutical industry. BioMed X’s innovation model, based on global mass sourcing and incubators to cultivate the most brilliant talent and ideas, will serve as the R & D engine to drive AION Labs’ enterprise model.
Greylock Partners has raised $500 million to invest exclusively in seed-stage startups. The announcement comes a year after the firm raised $1 billion for its 16th flagship fund to invest in early- and growth-stage tech startups.
Guo and general partner Saam Motamedi said in an interview the fund is part of an expansion of a $1.1 billion fund, which we reported last year, to $1.6 billion, The Information reported. The funding is among the industry’s largest devoted to seed investments, which often represent a startup’s first outside capital.
The pool of funds will give the 56-year-old venture capital firm the ability to write large checks at “lean-in valuations” and emphasize its commitment to early-stage investing, said general partner Sarah Guo. In a thread post on Twitter, Greylock said, “We at @GreylockVC are excited to announce we’ve raised $500M dedicated to seed investing. This is the industry’s largest pool of venture capital dedicated to backing founders at day one.”
2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum, Mass General Brigham, Gene and Cell Therapy, VIRTUAL May 19–21, 2021
The 2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum will focus on the growing impact of gene and cell therapy. Senior healthcare leaders from all over look to shape and debate the area of gene and cell therapy. Our shared belief: no matter the magnitude of change, responsible healthcare is centered on a shared commitment to collaborative innovation–industry, academia, and practitioners working together to improve patients’ lives.
About the World Medical Innovation Forum
Mass General Brigham is pleased to present the World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) virtual event Wednesday, May 19 – Friday, May 21. This interactive web event features expert discussions of gene and cell therapy (GCT) and its potential to change the future of medicine through its disease-treating and potentially curative properties. The agenda features 150+ executive speakers from the healthcare industry, venture, startups, life sciences manufacturing, consumer health and the front lines of care, including many Harvard Medical School-affiliated researchers and clinicians. The annual in-person Forum will resume live in Boston in 2022. The World Medical Innovation Forum is presented by Mass General Brigham Innovation, the global business development unit supporting the research requirements of 7,200 Harvard Medical School faculty and research hospitals including Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women’s, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Spaulding Rehab and McLean Hospital. Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/@MGBInnovation
Accelerating the Future of Medicine with Gene and Cell Therapy What Comes Next
Co-Chairs identify the key themes of the Forum – set the stage for top GCT opportunities, challenges, and where the field might take medicine in the future. Moderator: Susan Hockfield, PhD
President Emerita and Professor of Neuroscience, MIT
Hope that CGT emerging, how the therapies work, neuro, muscular, ocular, genetic diseases of liver and of heart revolution for the industry 900 IND application 25 approvals Economic driver Skilled works, VC disease. Modality one time intervention, long duration of impart, reimbursement, ecosystem to be built around CGT
FDA works by indications and risks involved, Standards and expectations for streamlining manufacturing, understanding of process and products
payments over time payers and Innovators relations Moderator: Julian Harris, MD
Partner, Deerfield
Promise of CGT realized, what part?
FDA role and interaction in CGT
Manufacturing aspects which is critical Speaker: Dave Lennon, PhD
President, Novartis Gene Therapies
Hope that CGT emerging, how the therapies work, neuro, muscular, ocular, genetic diseases of liver and of heart revolution for the industry 900 IND application 25 approvals Economic driver Skilled works, VC disease. Modality one time intervention, long duration of impart, reimbursement, ecosystem to be built around CGT
FDA works by indications and risks involved, Standards and expectations for streamlining manufacturing, understanding of process and products
payments over time payers and Innovators relations
GCT development for rare diseases is driven by patient and patient-advocate communities. Understanding their needs and perspectives enables biomarker research, the development of value-driving clinical trial endpoints and successful clinical trials. Industry works with patient communities that help identify unmet needs and collaborate with researchers to conduct disease natural history studies that inform the development of biomarkers and trial endpoints. This panel includes patients who have received cutting-edge GCT therapy as well as caregivers and patient advocates. Moderator: Patricia Musolino, MD, PhD
Co-Director Pediatric Stroke and Cerebrovascular Program, MGH
Assistant Professor of Neurology, HMS
What is the Power of One – the impact that a patient can have on their own destiny by participating in Clinical Trials Contacting other participants in same trial can be beneficial Speakers: Jack Hogan
Parkinson patient Constraints by regulatory on participation in clinical trial advance stage is approved participation Patients to determine the level of risk they wish to take Information dissemination is critical Barbara Lavery
Chief Program Officer, ACGT Foundation
Advocacy agency beginning of work Global Genes educational content and out reach to access the information
Patient has the knowledge of the symptoms and recording all input needed for diagnosis by multiple clinicians Early application for CGTDan Tesler
Clinical Trial Patient, BWH/DFCC
Experimental Drug clinical trial patient participation in clinical trial is very important to advance the state of scienceSarah Beth Thomas, RN
Professional Development Manager, BWH
Outcome is unknown, hope for good, support with resources all advocacy groups,
Process at FDA generalize from 1st entry to rules more generalizable Speaker: Peter Marks, MD, PhD
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA
Last Spring it became clear that something will work a vaccine by June 2020 belief that enough candidates the challenge manufacture enough and scaling up FDA did not predicted the efficacy of mRNA vaccine vs other approaches expected to work
Recover Work load for the pandemic will wean & clear, Gene Therapies IND application remained flat in the face of the pandemic Rare diseases urgency remains Consensus with industry advisory to get input gene therapy Guidance T-Cell therapy vs Regulation best thinking CGT evolve speedily flexible gained by Guidance
Immune modulators, Immunotherapy Genome editing can make use of viral vectors future technologies nanoparticles and liposome encapsulation
big pharma has portfolios of therapeutics not one drug across Tx areas: cell, gene iodine therapy
collective learning infrastructure features manufacturing at scale early in development Acquisitions strategy for growth # applications for scaling Rick Modi
CEO, Affinia Therapeutics
Copy, paste EDIT from product A to B novel vectors leverage knowledge varient of vector, coder optimization choice of indication is critical exploration on larger populations Speed to R&D and Speed to better gene construct get to clinic with better design vs ASAP
Data sharing clinical experience with vectors strategies patients selection, vector selection, mitigation, patient type specific Louise Rodino-Klapac, PhD
AAV based platform 15 years in development same disease indication vs more than one indication stereotype, analytics as hurdle 1st was 10 years 2nd was 3 years
Safety to clinic vs speed to clinic, difference of vectors to trust
Recent AAV gene therapy product approvals have catalyzed the field. This new class of therapies has shown the potential to bring transformative benefit to patients. With dozens of AAV treatments in clinical studies, all eyes are on the field to gauge its disruptive impact.
The panel assesses the largest challenges of the first two products, the lessons learned for the broader CGT field, and the extent to which they serve as a precedent to broaden the AAV modality.
Is AAV gene therapy restricted to genetically defined disorders, or will it be able to address common diseases in the near term?
Lessons learned from these first-in-class approvals.
Challenges to broaden this modality to similar indications.
Reflections on safety signals in the clinical studies?
Tissue types additional administrations, tech and science, address additional diseases, more science for photoreceptors a different tissue type underlying pathology novelties in last 10 years
Laxterna success to be replicated platform, paradigms measurement visual improved
More science is needed to continue develop vectors reduce toxicity,
AAV can deliver different cargos reduce adverse events improve vectorsRon Philip
Chief Operating Officer, Spark Therapeutics
The first retinal gene therapy, voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (Luxturna, Spark Therapeutics), was approved by the FDA in 2017.Meredith Schultz, MD
Executive Medical Director, Lead TME, Novartis Gene Therapies
Impact of cell therapy beyond muscular dystrophy, translational medicine, each indication, each disease, each group of patients build platform unlock the promise
Monitoring for Safety signals real world evidence remote markers, home visits, clinical trial made safer, better communication of information
AAV a complex driver in Pharmacology durable, vector of choice, administer in vitro, gene editing tissue specificity, pharmacokinetics side effects and adverse events manufacturability site variation diversify portfolios,
This panel will address the advances in the area of AAV gene therapy delivery looking out the next five years. Questions that loom large are: How can biodistribution of AAV be improved? What solutions are in the wings to address immunogenicity of AAV? Will patients be able to receive systemic redosing of AAV-based gene therapies in the future? What technical advances are there for payload size? Will the cost of manufacturing ever become affordable for ultra-rare conditions? Will non-viral delivery completely supplant viral delivery within the next five years?What are the safety concerns and how will they be addressed? Moderators: Xandra Breakefield, PhD
Ataxia requires therapy targeting multiple organ with one therapy, brain, spinal cord, heart several IND, clinical trials in 2022Mathew Pletcher, PhD
SVP, Head of Gene Therapy Research and Technical Operations, Astellas
Work with diseases poorly understood, collaborations needs example of existing: DMD is a great example explain dystrophin share placedo data
Continue to explore large animal guinea pig not the mice, not primates (ethical issues) for understanding immunogenicity and immune response Manny Simons, PhD
CEO, Akouos
AAV Therapy for the fluid of the inner ear, CGT for the ear vector accessible to surgeons translational work on the inner ear for gene therapy right animal model
Biology across species nerve ending in the cochlea
engineer out of the caspid, lowest dose possible, get desired effect by vector use, 2022 new milestones
The GCT M&A market is booming – many large pharmas have made at least one significant acquisition. How should we view the current GCT M&A market? What is its impact of the current M&A market on technology development? Are these M&A trends new are just another cycle? Has pharma strategy shifted and, if so, what does it mean for GCT companies? What does it mean for patients? What are the long-term prospects – can valuations hold up? Moderator: Adam Koppel, MD, PhD
Managing Director, Bain Capital Life Sciences
What acquirers are looking for??
What is the next generation vs what is real where is the industry going? Speakers:
Debby Baron,
Worldwide Business Development, Pfizer
CGT is an important area Pfizer is active looking for innovators, advancing forward programs of innovation with the experience Pfizer has internally
Scalability and manufacturing regulatory conversations, clinical programs safety in parallel to planning getting drug to patients
ALS – Man 1in 300, Women 1 in 400, next decade increase 7%
10% ALS is heredity 160 pharma in ALS space, diagnosis is late 1/3 of people are not diagnosed, active community for clinical trials Challenges: disease heterogeneity cases of 10 years late in diagnosis. Clinical Trials for ALS in Gene Therapy targeting ASO1 protein therapies FUS gene struck youngsters
Cell therapy for ACTA2 Vasculopathy in the brain and control the BP and stroke – smooth muscle intima proliferation. Viral vector deliver aiming to change platform to non-viral delivery rare disease , gene editing, other mutations of ACTA2 gene target other pathway for atherosclerosis
Oncolytic viruses represent a powerful new technology, but so far an FDA-approved oncolytic (Imlygic) has only occurred in one area – melanoma and that what is in 2015. This panel involves some of the protagonists of this early success story. They will explore why and how Imlygic became approved and its path to commercialization. Yet, no other cancer indications exist for Imlygic, unlike the expansion of FDA-approved indication for immune checkpoint inhibitors to multiple cancers. Why? Is there a limitation to what and which cancers can target? Is the mode of administration a problem?
No other oncolytic virus therapy has been approved since 2015. Where will the next success story come from and why? Will these therapies only be beneficial for skin cancers or other easily accessible cancers based on intratumoral delivery?
The panel will examine whether the preclinical models that have been developed for other cancer treatment modalities will be useful for oncolytic viruses. It will also assess the extent pre-clinical development challenges have slowed the development of OVs. Moderator: Nino Chiocca, MD, PhD
Neurosurgeon-in-Chief and Chairman, Neurosurgery, BWH
Harvey W. Cushing Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS
Challenges of manufacturing at Amgen what are they? Speakers: Robert Coffin, PhD
Chief Research & Development Officer, Replimune
2002 in UK promise in oncolytic therapy GNCSF
Phase III melanoma 2015 M&A with Amgen
oncolytic therapy remains non effecting on immune response
data is key for commercialization
do not belief in systemic therapy achieve maximum immune response possible from a tumor by localized injection Roger Perlmutter, MD, PhD
Chairman, Merck & Co.
response rates systemic therapy like PD1, Keytruda, OPTIVA well tolerated combination of Oncolytic with systemic
Physician, Dana Farber-Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center
Assistant Professor of Medicine, HMS
Which person gets oncolytics virus if patient has immune suppression due to other indications
Safety of oncolytic virus greater than Systemic treatment
series biopsies for injected and non injected tissue and compare Suspect of hot tumor and cold tumors likely to have sme response to agent unknown all potential
There are currently two oncolytic virus products on the market, one in the USA and one in China. As of late 2020, there were 86 clinical trials 60 of which were in phase I with just 2 in Phase III the rest in Phase I/II or Phase II. Although global sales of OVs are still in the ramp-up phase, some projections forecast OVs will be a $700 million market by 2026. This panel will address some of the major questions in this area:
What regulatory challenges will keep OVs from realizing their potential? Despite the promise of OVs for treating cancer only one has been approved in the US. Why has this been the case? Reasons such have viral tropism, viral species selection and delivery challenges have all been cited. However, these are also true of other modalities. Why then have oncolytic virus approaches not advanced faster and what are the primary challenges to be overcome?
Will these need to be combined with other agents to realize their full efficacy and how will that impact the market?
Why are these companies pursuing OVs while several others are taking a pass?
In 2020 there were a total of 60 phase I trials for Oncolytic Viruses. There are now dozens of companies pursuing some aspect of OV technology. This panel will address:
How are small companies equipped to address the challenges of developing OV therapies better than large pharma or biotech?
Will the success of COVID vaccines based on Adenovirus help the regulatory environment for small companies developing OV products in Europe and the USA?
Is there a place for non-viral delivery and other immunotherapy companies to engage in the OV space? Would they bring any real advantages?
Systemic delivery Oncolytic Virus IV delivery woman in remission
Collaboration with Regeneron
Data collection: Imageable reporter secretable reporter, gene expression
Field is intense systemic oncolytic delivery is exciting in mice and in human, response rates are encouraging combination immune stimulant, check inhibitors
Few areas of potential cancer therapy have had the attention and excitement of CAR-T. This panel of leading executives, developers, and clinician-scientists will explore the current state of CAR-T and its future prospects. Among the questions to be addressed are:
Is CAR-T still an industry priority – i.e. are new investments being made by large companies? Are new companies being financed? What are the trends?
What have we learned from first-generation products, what can we expect from CAR-T going forward in novel targets, combinations, armored CAR’s and allogeneic treatment adoption?
Early trials showed remarkable overall survival and progression-free survival. What has been observed regarding how enduring these responses are?
Most of the approvals to date have targeted CD19, and most recently BCMA. What are the most common forms of relapses that have been observed?
Is there a consensus about what comes after these CD19 and BCMA trials as to additional targets in liquid tumors? How have dual-targeted approaches fared?
The potential application of CAR-T in solid tumors will be a game-changer if it occurs. The panel explores the prospects of solid tumor success and what the barriers have been. Questions include:
How would industry and investor strategy for CAR-T and solid tumors be characterized? Has it changed in the last couple of years?
Does the lack of tumor antigen specificity in solid tumors mean that lessons from liquid tumor CAR-T constructs will not translate well and we have to start over?
Whether due to antigen heterogeneity, a hostile tumor micro-environment, or other factors are some specific solid tumors more attractive opportunities than others for CAR-T therapy development?
Given the many challenges that CAR-T faces in solid tumors, does the use of combination therapies from the start, for example, to mitigate TME effects, offer a more compelling opportunity.
Executive Director, Head of Cell Therapy Research, Exploratory Immuno-Oncology, NIBR
2017 CAR-T first approval
M&A and research collaborations
TCR tumor specific antigens avoid tissue toxicity Knut Niss, PhD
CTO, Mustang Bio
tumor hot start in 12 month clinical trial solid tumors , theraties not ready yet. Combination therapy will be an experimental treatment long journey checkpoint inhibitors to be used in combination maintenance Lipid tumor Barbra Sasu, PhD
CSO, Allogene
T cell response at prostate cancer
tumor specific
cytokine tumor specific signals move from solid to metastatic cell type for easier infiltration
Where we might go: safety autologous and allogeneic Jay Short, PhD
Chairman, CEO, Cofounder, BioAlta, Inc.
Tumor type is not enough for development of therapeutics other organs are involved in the periphery
difficult to penetrate solid tumors biologics activated in the tumor only, positive changes surrounding all charges, water molecules inside the tissue acidic environment target the cells inside the tumor and not outside
The modes of GCT manufacturing have the potential of fundamentally reordering long-established roles and pathways. While complexity goes up the distance from discovery to deployment shrinks. With the likelihood of a total market for cell therapies to be over $48 billion by 2027, groups of products are emerging. Stem cell therapies are projected to be $28 billion by 2027 and non-stem cell therapies such as CAR-T are projected be $20 billion by 2027. The manufacturing challenges for these two large buckets are very different. Within the CAR-T realm there are diverging trends of autologous and allogeneic therapies and the demands on manufacturing infrastructure are very different. Questions for the panelists are:
Help us all understand the different manufacturing challenges for cell therapies. What are the trade-offs among storage cost, batch size, line changes in terms of production cost and what is the current state of scaling naïve and stem cell therapy treatment vs engineered cell therapies?
For cell and gene therapy what is the cost of Quality Assurance/Quality Control vs. production and how do you think this will trend over time based on your perspective on learning curves today?
Will point of care production become a reality? How will that change product development strategy for pharma and venture investors? What would be the regulatory implications for such products?
How close are allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies? If successful what are the market implications of allogenic CAR-T? What are the cost implications and rewards for developing allogeneic cell therapy treatments?
Global Head of Product Development, Gene & Cell Therapy, Catalent
2/3 autologous 1/3 allogeneic CAR-T high doses and high populations scale up is not done today quality maintain required the timing logistics issues centralized vs decentralized allogeneic are health donors innovations in cell types in use improvements in manufacturing
China embraced gene and cell therapies early. The first China gene therapy clinical trial was in 1991. China approved the world’s first gene therapy product in 2003—Gendicine—an oncolytic adenovirus for the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer. Driven by broad national strategy, China has become a hotbed of GCT development, ranking second in the world with more than 1,000 clinical trials either conducted or underway and thousands of related patents. It has a booming GCT biotech sector, led by more than 45 local companies with growing IND pipelines.
In late 1990, a T cell-based immunotherapy, cytokine-induced killer (CIK) therapy became a popular modality in the clinic in China for tumor treatment. In early 2010, Chinese researchers started to carry out domestic CAR T trials inspired by several important reports suggested the great antitumor function of CAR T cells. Now, China became the country with the most registered CAR T trials, CAR T therapy is flourishing in China.
The Chinese GCT ecosystem has increasingly rich local innovation and growing complement of development and investment partnerships – and also many subtleties.
This panel, consisting of leaders from the China GCT corporate, investor, research and entrepreneurial communities, will consider strategic questions on the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry in China, areas of greatest strength, evolving regulatory framework, early successes and products expected to reach the US and world market. Moderator: Min Wu, PhD
Managing Director, Fosun Health Fund
What are the area of CGT in China, regulatory similar to the US Speakers: Alvin Luk, PhD
CEO, Neuropath Therapeutics
Monogenic rare disease with clear genomic target
Increase of 30% in patient enrollment
Regulatory reform approval is 60 days no delayPin Wang, PhD
CSO, Jiangsu Simcere Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Similar starting point in CGT as the rest of the World unlike a later starting point in other biologicalRichard Wang, PhD
CEO, Fosun Kite Biotechnology Co., Ltd
Possibilities to be creative and capitalize the new technologies for innovating drug
Support of the ecosystem by funding new companie allowing the industry to be developed in China
Autologous in patients differences cost challengeTian Xu, PhD
Vice President, Westlake University
ICH committee and Chinese FDA -r regulation similar to the US
Difference is the population recruitment, in China patients are active participants in skin disease
Active in development of transposome
Development of non-viral methods, CRISPR still in D and transposome
In China price of drugs regulatory are sensitive Shunfei Yan, PhD
The COVID vaccine race has propelled mRNA to the forefront of biomedicine. Long considered as a compelling modality for therapeutic gene transfer, the technology may have found its most impactful application as a vaccine platform. Given the transformative industrialization, the massive human experience, and the fast development that has taken place in this industry, where is the horizon? Does the success of the vaccine application, benefit or limit its use as a therapeutic for CGT?
How will the COVID success impact the rest of the industry both in therapeutic and prophylactic vaccines and broader mRNA lessons?
How will the COVID success impact the rest of the industry both on therapeutic and prophylactic vaccines and broader mRNA lessons?
Beyond from speed of development, what aspects make mRNA so well suited as a vaccine platform?
Will cost-of-goods be reduced as the industry matures?
How does mRNA technology seek to compete with AAV and other gene therapy approaches?
Many years of mRNA pivoting for new diseases, DARPA, nucleic Acids global deployment of a manufacturing unit on site where the need arise Elan Musk funds new directions at Moderna
How many mRNA can be put in one vaccine: Dose and tolerance to achieve efficacy
45 days for Personalized cancer vaccine one per patient
Hemophilia has been and remains a hallmark indication for the CGT. Given its well-defined biology, larger market, and limited need for gene transfer to provide therapeutic benefit, it has been at the forefront of clinical development for years, however, product approval remains elusive. What are the main hurdles to this success? Contrary to many indications that CGT pursues no therapeutic options are available to patients, hemophiliacs have an increasing number of highly efficacious treatment options. How does the competitive landscape impact this field differently than other CGT fields? With many different players pursuing a gene therapy option for hemophilia, what are the main differentiators? Gene therapy for hemophilia seems compelling for low and middle-income countries, given the cost of currently available treatments; does your company see opportunities in this market? Moderator: Nancy Berliner, MD
Safety concerns, high burden of treatment CGT has record of safety and risk/benefit adoption of Tx functional cure CGT is potent Tx relative small quantity of protein needs be delivered
Potency and quality less quantity drug and greater potency
risk of delivery unwanted DNA, capsules are critical
analytics is critical regulator involvement in potency definition
Director, Center for Rare Neurological Diseases, MGH
Associate Professor, Neurology, HMS
Single gene disorder NGS enable diagnosis, DIagnosis to Treatment How to know whar cell to target, make it available and scale up Address gap: missing components Biomarkers to cell types lipid chemistry cell animal biology
crosswalk from bone marrow matter
New gene discovered that causes neurodevelopment of stagnant genes Examining new Biology cell type specific biomarkers
The American Diabetes Association estimates 30 million Americans have diabetes and 1.5 million are diagnosed annually. GCT offers the prospect of long-sought treatment for this enormous cohort and their chronic requirements. The complexity of the disease and its management constitute a grand challenge and highlight both the potential of GCT and its current limitations.
Islet transplantation for type 1 diabetes has been attempted for decades. Problems like loss of transplanted islet cells due to autoimmunity and graft site factors have been difficult to address. Is there anything different on the horizon for gene and cell therapies to help this be successful?
How is the durability of response for gene or cell therapies for diabetes being addressed? For example, what would the profile of an acceptable (vs. optimal) cell therapy look like?
Advanced made, Patient of Type 1 Outer and Inner compartments of spheres (not capsule) no immune suppression continuous secretion of enzyme Insulin independence without immune suppression
Volume to have of-the-shelf inventory oxegenation in location lymphatic and vascularization conrol the whole process modular platform learning from others
Keep eyes open, waiting the Pandemic to end and enable working back on all the indications
Portfolio of MET, Mimi Emerging Therapies
Learning from the Pandemic – operationalize the practice science, R&D leaders, new collaboratives at NIH, FDA, Novartis
Pursue programs that will yield growth, tropic diseases with Gates Foundation, Rising Tide pods for access CGT within Novartis Partnership with UPenn in Cell Therapy
Cost to access to IP from Academia to a Biotech CRISPR accessing few translations to Clinic
Protein degradation organization constraint valuation by parties in a partnership
Novartis: nuclear protein lipid nuclear particles, tamplate for Biotech to collaborate
Game changing: 10% of the Portfolio, New frontiers human genetics in Ophthalmology, CAR-T, CRISPR, Gene Therapy Neurological and payloads of different matter
The Voice of Dr. Seidman – Her abstract is cited below
The ultimate opportunity presented by discovering the genetic basis of human disease is accurate prediction and disease prevention. To enable this achievement, genetic insights must enable the identification of at-risk
individuals prior to end-stage disease manifestations and strategies that delay or prevent clinical expression. Genetic cardiomyopathies provide a paradigm for fulfilling these opportunities. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is characterized by left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction with normal or enhanced systolic performance and a unique histopathology: myocyte hypertrophy, disarray and fibrosis. Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) exhibits enlarged ventricular volumes with depressed systolic performance and nonspecific histopathology. Both HCM and DCM are prevalent clinical conditions that increase risk for arrhythmias, sudden death, and heart failure. Today treatments for HCM and DCM focus on symptoms, but none prevent disease progression. Human molecular genetic studies demonstrated that these pathologies often result from dominant mutations in genes that encode protein components of the sarcomere, the contractile unit in striated muscles. These data combined with the emergence of molecular strategies to specifically modulate gene expression provide unparalleled opportunities to silence or correct mutant genes and to boost healthy gene expression in patients with genetic HCM and DCM. Many challenges remain, but the active and vital efforts of physicians, researchers, and patients are poised to ensure success.
Cyprus Island, kidney disease by mutation causing MUC1 accumulation and death BRD4780 molecule that will clear the misfolding proteins from the kidney organoids: pleuripotent stem cells small molecule developed for applications in the other cell types in brain, eye, gene mutation build mechnism for therapy clinical models transition from Academia to biotech
One of the most innovative segments in all of healthcare is the development of GCT driven therapies for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Driven by a series of insights and tools and funded in part by disease focused foundations, philanthropists and abundant venture funding disease after disease is yielding to new GCT technology. These often become platforms to address more prevalent diseases. The goal of making these breakthroughs routine and affordable is challenged by a range of issues including clinical trial design and pricing.
What is driving the interest in rare diseases?
What are the biggest barriers to making breakthroughs ‘routine and affordable?’
What is the role of retrospective and prospective natural history studies in rare disease? When does the expected value of retrospective disease history studies justify the cost?
Related to the first question, what is the FDA expecting as far as controls in clinical trials for rare diseases? How does this impact the collection of natural history data?
The power of GCT to cure disease has the prospect of profoundly improving the lives of patients who respond. Planning for a disruption of this magnitude is complex and challenging as it will change care across the spectrum. Leading chief executives shares perspectives on how the industry will change and how this change should be anticipated. Moderator: Meg Tirrell
Senior Health and Science Reporter, CNBC
CGT becoming staple therapy what are the disruptors emerging Speakers: Lisa Dechamps
SVP & Chief Business Officer, Novartis Gene Therapies
Reimagine medicine with collaboration at MGH, MDM condition in children
The Science is there, sustainable processes and systems impact is transformational
Value based pricing, risk sharing Payers and Pharma for one time therapy with life span effect
Head, Pharmaceuticals Research & Development, Bayer AG
CGT – 2016 and in 2020 new leadership and capability
Disease Biology and therapeutics
Regenerative Medicine: CGT vs repair building pipeline in ophthalmology and cardiovascular
During Pandemic: Deliver Medicines like Moderna, Pfizer – collaborations between competitors with Government Bayer entered into Vaccines in 5 days, all processes had to change access innovations developed over decades for medical solutions
GCT represents a large and growing market for novel therapeutics that has several segments. These include Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Neurological Diseases, Infectious Disease, Ophthalmology, Benign Blood Disorders, and many others; Manufacturing and Supply Chain including CDMO’s and CMO’s; Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Tools and Platforms (viral vectors, nano delivery, gene editing, etc.). Bayer’s pharma business participates in virtually all of these segments. How does a Company like Bayer approach the development of a portfolio in a space as large and as diverse as this one? How does Bayer approach the support of the production infrastructure with unique demands and significant differences from its historical requirements? Moderator:
EVP, Pharmaceuticals, Head of Cell & Gene Therapy, Bayer AG
CGT will bring treatment to cure, delivery of therapies
Be a Leader repair, regenerate, cure
Technology and Science for CGT – building a portfolio vs single asset decision criteria development of IP market access patients access acceleration of new products
Bayer strategy: build platform for use by four domains
Gener augmentation
Autologeneic therapy, analytics
Gene editing
Oncology Cell therapy tumor treatment: What kind of cells – the jury is out
Of 23 product launch at Bayer no prediction is possible some high some lows
Gene delivery uses physical, chemical, or viral means to introduce genetic material into cells. As more genetically modified therapies move closer to the market, challenges involving safety, efficacy, and manufacturing have emerged. Optimizing lipidic and polymer nanoparticles and exosomal delivery is a short-term priority. This panel will examine how the short-term and long-term challenges are being tackled particularly for non-viral delivery modalities. Moderator: Natalie Artzi, PhD
Gene editing was recognized by the Nobel Committee as “one of gene technology’s sharpest tools, having a revolutionary impact on life sciences.” Introduced in 2011, gene editing is used to modify DNA. It has applications across almost all categories of disease and is also being used in agriculture and public health.
Today’s panel is made up of pioneers who represent foundational aspects of gene editing. They will discuss the movement of the technology into the therapeutic mainstream.
Successes in gene editing – lessons learned from late-stage assets (sickle cell, ophthalmology)
When to use what editing tool – pros and cons of traditional gene-editing v. base editing. Is prime editing the future? Specific use cases for epigenetic editing.
When we reach widespread clinical use – role of off-target editing – is the risk real? How will we mitigate? How practical is patient-specific off-target evaluation?
There are several dozen companies working to develop gene or cell therapies for Sickle Cell Disease, Beta Thalassemia, and Fanconi Anemia. In some cases, there are enzyme replacement therapies that are deemed effective and safe. In other cases, the disease is only managed at best. This panel will address a number of questions that are particular to this class of genetic diseases:
What are the pros and cons of various strategies for treatment? There are AAV-based editing, non-viral delivery even oligonucleotide recruitment of endogenous editing/repair mechanisms. Which approaches are most appropriate for which disease?
How can companies increase the speed of recruitment for clinical trials when other treatments are available? What is the best approach to educate patients on a novel therapeutic?
How do we best address ethnic and socio-economic diversity to be more representative of the target patient population?
How long do we have to follow up with the patients from the scientific, patient’s community, and payer points of view? What are the current FDA and EMA guidelines for long-term follow-up?
Where are we with regards to surrogate endpoints and their application to clinically meaningful endpoints?
What are the emerging ethical dilemmas in pediatric gene therapy research? Are there challenges with informed consent and pediatric assent for trial participation?
Are there differences in reimbursement policies for these different blood disorders? Clearly durability of response is a big factor. Are there other considerations?
Oligonucleotide drugs have recently come into their own with approvals from companies such as Biogen, Alnylam, Novartis and others. This panel will address several questions:
How important is the delivery challenge for oligonucleotides? Are technological advancements emerging that will improve the delivery of oligonucleotides to the CNS or skeletal muscle after systemic administration?
Will oligonucleotides improve as a class that will make them even more effective? Are further advancements in backbone chemistry anticipated, for example.
Will oligonucleotide based therapies blaze trails for follow-on gene therapy products?
Are small molecules a threat to oligonucleotide-based therapies?
Beyond exon skipping and knock-down mechanisms, what other roles will oligonucleotide-based therapies take mechanistically — can genes be activating oligonucleotides? Is there a place for multiple mechanism oligonucleotide medicines?
Are there any advantages of RNAi-based oligonucleotides over ASOs, and if so for what use?
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
Computer connection to the iCloud of WordPress.com FROZE completely at 10:30AM EST and no file update was possible. COVERAGE OF MAY 21, 2021 IS RECORDED BELOW FOLLOWING THE AGENDA BY COPY AN DPASTE OF ALL THE TWEETS I PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021 8:30 AM – 8:55 AM
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.Christine Seidman, MD
Cyprus Island, kidney disease by mutation causing MUC1 accumulation and death BRD4780 molecule that will clear the misfolding proteins from the kidney organoids: pleuripotent stem cells small molecule developed for applications in the other cell types in brain, eye, gene mutation build mechnism for therapy clinical models transition from Academia to biotech
One of the most innovative segments in all of healthcare is the development of GCT driven therapies for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Driven by a series of insights and tools and funded in part by disease focused foundations, philanthropists and abundant venture funding disease after disease is yielding to new GCT technology. These often become platforms to address more prevalent diseases. The goal of making these breakthroughs routine and affordable is challenged by a range of issues including clinical trial design and pricing.
What is driving the interest in rare diseases?
What are the biggest barriers to making breakthroughs ‘routine and affordable?’
What is the role of retrospective and prospective natural history studies in rare disease? When does the expected value of retrospective disease history studies justify the cost?
Related to the first question, what is the FDA expecting as far as controls in clinical trials for rare diseases? How does this impact the collection of natural history data?
The power of GCT to cure disease has the prospect of profoundly improving the lives of patients who respond. Planning for a disruption of this magnitude is complex and challenging as it will change care across the spectrum. Leading chief executives shares perspectives on how the industry will change and how this change should be anticipated. Moderator: Meg Tirrell
Senior Health and Science Reporter, CNBC
CGT becoming staple therapy what are the disruptors emerging Speakers: Lisa Dechamps
SVP & Chief Business Officer, Novartis Gene Therapies
Reimagine medicine with collaboration at MGH, MDM condition in children
The Science is there, sustainable processes and systems impact is transformational
Value based pricing, risk sharing Payers and Pharma for one time therapy with life span effect
Head, Pharmaceuticals Research & Development, Bayer AG
CGT – 2016 and in 2020 new leadership and capability
Disease Biology and therapeutics
Regenerative Medicine: CGT vs repair building pipeline in ophthalmology and cardiovascular
During Pandemic: Deliver Medicines like Moderna, Pfizer – collaborations between competitors with Government Bayer entered into Vaccines in 5 days, all processes had to change access innovations developed over decades for medical solutions
GCT represents a large and growing market for novel therapeutics that has several segments. These include Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Neurological Diseases, Infectious Disease, Ophthalmology, Benign Blood Disorders, and many others; Manufacturing and Supply Chain including CDMO’s and CMO’s; Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Tools and Platforms (viral vectors, nano delivery, gene editing, etc.). Bayer’s pharma business participates in virtually all of these segments. How does a Company like Bayer approach the development of a portfolio in a space as large and as diverse as this one? How does Bayer approach the support of the production infrastructure with unique demands and significant differences from its historical requirements? Moderator:
EVP, Pharmaceuticals, Head of Cell & Gene Therapy, Bayer AG
CGT will bring treatment to cure, delivery of therapies
Be a Leader repair, regenerate, cure
Technology and Science for CGT – building a portfolio vs single asset decision criteria development of IP market access patients access acceleration of new products
Bayer strategy: build platform for use by four domains
Gener augmentation
Autologeneic therapy, analytics
Gene editing
Oncology Cell therapy tumor treatment: What kind of cells – the jury is out
Of 23 product launch at Bayer no prediction is possible some high some lows
Gene delivery uses physical, chemical, or viral means to introduce genetic material into cells. As more genetically modified therapies move closer to the market, challenges involving safety, efficacy, and manufacturing have emerged. Optimizing lipidic and polymer nanoparticles and exosomal delivery is a short-term priority. This panel will examine how the short-term and long-term challenges are being tackled particularly for non-viral delivery modalities. Moderator: Natalie Artzi, PhD
Gene editing was recognized by the Nobel Committee as “one of gene technology’s sharpest tools, having a revolutionary impact on life sciences.” Introduced in 2011, gene editing is used to modify DNA. It has applications across almost all categories of disease and is also being used in agriculture and public health.
Today’s panel is made up of pioneers who represent foundational aspects of gene editing. They will discuss the movement of the technology into the therapeutic mainstream.
Successes in gene editing – lessons learned from late-stage assets (sickle cell, ophthalmology)
When to use what editing tool – pros and cons of traditional gene-editing v. base editing. Is prime editing the future? Specific use cases for epigenetic editing.
When we reach widespread clinical use – role of off-target editing – is the risk real? How will we mitigate? How practical is patient-specific off-target evaluation?
There are several dozen companies working to develop gene or cell therapies for Sickle Cell Disease, Beta Thalassemia, and Fanconi Anemia. In some cases, there are enzyme replacement therapies that are deemed effective and safe. In other cases, the disease is only managed at best. This panel will address a number of questions that are particular to this class of genetic diseases:
What are the pros and cons of various strategies for treatment? There are AAV-based editing, non-viral delivery even oligonucleotide recruitment of endogenous editing/repair mechanisms. Which approaches are most appropriate for which disease?
How can companies increase the speed of recruitment for clinical trials when other treatments are available? What is the best approach to educate patients on a novel therapeutic?
How do we best address ethnic and socio-economic diversity to be more representative of the target patient population?
How long do we have to follow up with the patients from the scientific, patient’s community, and payer points of view? What are the current FDA and EMA guidelines for long-term follow-up?
Where are we with regards to surrogate endpoints and their application to clinically meaningful endpoints?
What are the emerging ethical dilemmas in pediatric gene therapy research? Are there challenges with informed consent and pediatric assent for trial participation?
Are there differences in reimbursement policies for these different blood disorders? Clearly durability of response is a big factor. Are there other considerations?
Oligonucleotide drugs have recently come into their own with approvals from companies such as Biogen, Alnylam, Novartis and others. This panel will address several questions:
How important is the delivery challenge for oligonucleotides? Are technological advancements emerging that will improve the delivery of oligonucleotides to the CNS or skeletal muscle after systemic administration?
Will oligonucleotides improve as a class that will make them even more effective? Are further advancements in backbone chemistry anticipated, for example.
Will oligonucleotide based therapies blaze trails for follow-on gene therapy products?
Are small molecules a threat to oligonucleotide-based therapies?
Beyond exon skipping and knock-down mechanisms, what other roles will oligonucleotide-based therapies take mechanistically — can genes be activating oligonucleotides? Is there a place for multiple mechanism oligonucleotide medicines?
Are there any advantages of RNAi-based oligonucleotides over ASOs, and if so for what use?
Computer connection to the iCloud of WordPress.com FROZE completely at 10:30AM EST and no file update was possible. COVERAGE OF MAY 21, 2021 IS RECORDED BELOW FOLLOWING THE AGENDA BY COPY AN DPASTE OF ALL THE TWEETS I PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
Partner, Mass General Brigham Innovation Fund
Strategies, success what changes are needed in the drug discovery process Speakers:
Bring disruptive frontier as a platform with reliable delivery CGT double knock out disease cure all change efficiency and scope human centric vs mice centered right scale of data converted into therapeutics acceleratetion
Innovation in drugs 60% fails in trial because of Toxicology system of the future deal with big diseases
Moderna is an example in unlocking what is inside us Microbiome and beyond discover new drugs epigenetics
Manufacturing change is not a new clinical trial FDA need to be presented with new rethinking for big innovations Drug pricing cheaper requires systematization How to systematically scaling up systematize the discovery and the production regulatory innovations
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
Director, Neuroregeneration Research Institute, McLean
Professor, Neurology and Neuroscience, MGH, HMS
Opportunities in the next generation of the tactical level Welcome the oprimism and energy level of all Translational medicine funding stem cells enormous opportunities
Ear inside the scall compartments and receptors responsible for hearing highly differentiated tall ask to identify cell for anticipated differentiation
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
VP, Venture, Mass General Brigham
Saturation reached or more investment is coming in CGT
Pharmacologic agent in existing cause another disorders locomo-movement related
efficacy Autologous cell therapy transplantation approach program T cells into dopamine generating neurons greater than Allogeneic cell transplantation
Current market does not have delivery mechanism that a drug-delivery is the solution Trials would fail on DELIVERY
Immune suppressed patients during one year to avoid graft rejection Autologous approach of Parkinson patient genetically mutated reprogramed as dopamine generating neuron – unknowns are present
Circuitry restoration
Microenvironment disease ameliorate symptoms – education of patients on the treatment
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.
ALL THE TWEETS PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021 INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
Bob Carter, MD, PhD Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, MGH William and Elizabeth Sweet, Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS Neurogeneration REVERSAL or slowing down?
Penelope Hallett, PhD NRL, McLean Assistant Professor Psychiatry, HMS efficacy Autologous cell therapy transplantation approach program T cells into dopamine genetating cells greater than Allogeneic cell transplantation
Roger Kitterman VP, Venture, Mass General Brigham Saturation reached or more investment is coming in CGT Multi OMICS and academia originated innovations are the most attractive areas
Peter Kolchinsky, PhD Founder and Managing Partner, RA Capital Management Future proof for new comers disruptors Ex Vivo gene therapy to improve funding products what tool kit belongs to
Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, MGH, Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS Cell therapy for Parkinson to replace dopamine producing cells lost ability to produce dopamine skin cell to become autologous cells reprogramed
Kapil Bharti, PhD Senior Investigator, Ocular and Stem Cell Translational Research Section, NIH Off-th-shelf one time treatment becoming cure Intact tissue in a dish is fragile to maintain metabolism to become like semiconductors
Ole Isacson, MD, PhD Director, Neuroregeneration Research Institute, McLean Professor, Neurology and Neuroscience, MGH, HMS Opportunities in the next generation of the tactical level Welcome the oprimism and energy level of all
Erin Kimbrel, PhD Executive Director, Regenerative Medicine, Astellas In the ocular space immunogenecity regulatory communication use gene editing for immunogenecity Cas1 and Cas2 autologous cells
Nabiha Saklayen, PhD CEO and Co-Founder, Cellino scale production of autologous cells foundry using semiconductor process in building cassettes by optic physicists
Joe Burns, PhD VP, Head of Biology, Decibel Therapeutics Ear inside the scall compartments and receptors responsible for hearing highly differentiated tall ask to identify cell for anticipated differentiation control by genomics
Kapil Bharti, PhD Senior Investigator, Ocular and Stem Cell Translational Research Section, NIH first drug required to establish the process for that innovations design of animal studies not done before
Robert Nelsen Managing Director, Co-founder, ARCH Venture Partners Manufacturing change is not a new clinical trial FDA need to be presented with new rethinking for big innovations Drug pricing cheaper requires systematization
David Berry, MD, PhD CEO, Valo Health GP, Flagship Pioneering Bring disruptive frontier platform reliable delivery CGT double knockout disease cure all change efficiency scope human centric vs mice centered right scale acceleration
Kush Parmar, MD, PhD Managing Partner, 5AM Ventures build it yourself, benefit for patients FIrst Look at MGB shows MEE innovation on inner ear worthy investment
Robert Nelsen Managing Director, Co-founder, ARCH Venture Partners Frustration with supply chain during the Pandemic, GMC anticipation in advance CGT rapidly prototype rethink and invest proactive investor .edu and Pharma
Chapter 1: Evolution of the Foundation for Diagnostics and Pharmaceuticals Industries
1.1 Outline of Medical Discoveries between 1880 and 1980
1.2 The History of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology in the late 19th and 20th Century
1.3 The Classification of Microbiota
1.4 Selected Contributions to Chemistry from 1880 to 1980
1.5 The Evolution of Clinical Chemistry in the 20th Century
1.6 Milestones in the Evolution of Diagnostics in the US HealthCare System: 1920s to Pre-Genomics
Chapter 2. The search for the evolution of function of proteins, enzymes and metal catalysts in life processes
2.1 The life and work of Allan Wilson
2.2 The evolution of myoglobin and hemoglobin
2.3 More complexity in proteins evolution
2.4 Life on earth is traced to oxygen binding
2.5 The colors of life function
2.6 The colors of respiration and electron transport
2.7 Highlights of a green evolution
Chapter 3. Evolution of New Relationships in Neuroendocrine States
3.1 Pituitary endocrine axis
3.2 Thyroid function
3.3 Sex hormones
3.4 Adrenal Cortex
3.5 Pancreatic Islets
3.6 Parathyroids
3.7 Gastointestinal hormones
3.8 Endocrine action on midbrain
3.9 Neural activity regulating endocrine response
3.10 Genomic Promise for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Dementias, Autism Spectrum, Schizophrenia, and Serious Depression
Chapter 4. Problems of the Circulation, Altitude, and Immunity
4.1 Innervation of Heart and Heart Rate
4.2 Action of hormones on the circulation
4.3 Allogeneic Transfusion Reactions
4.4 Graft-versus Host reaction
4.5 Unique problems of perinatal period
4.6. High altitude sickness
4.7 Deep water adaptation
4.8 Heart-Lung-and Kidney
4.9 Acute Lung Injury
4.10 Reconstruction of Life Processes requires both Genomics and Metabolomics to explain Phenotypes and Phylogenetics
Chapter 5. Problems of Diets and Lifestyle Changes
5.1 Anorexia nervosa
5.2 Voluntary and Involuntary S-insufficiency
5.3 Diarrheas – bacterial and nonbacterial
5.4 Gluten-free diets
5.5 Diet and cholesterol
5.6 Diet and Type 2 diabetes mellitus
5.7 Diet and exercise
5.8 Anxiety and quality of Life
5.9 Nutritional Supplements
Chapter 6. Advances in Genomics, Therapeutics and Pharmacogenomics
6.1 Natural Products Chemistry
6.2 The Challenge of Antimicrobial Resistance
6.3 Viruses, Vaccines and immunotherapy
6.4 Genomics and Metabolomics Advances in Cancer
6.5 Proteomics – Protein Interaction
6.6 Pharmacogenomics
6.7 Biomarker Guided Therapy
6.8 The Emergence of a Pharmaceutical Industry in the 20th Century: Diagnostics Industry and Drug Development in the Genomics Era: Mid 80s to Present
6.09 The Union of Biomarkers and Drug Development
6.10 Proteomics and Biomarker Discovery
6.11 Epigenomics and Companion Diagnostics
Chapter 7
Integration of Physiology, Genomics and Pharmacotherapy
7.1 Richard Lifton, MD, PhD of Yale University and Howard Hughes Medical Institute: Recipient of 2014 Breakthrough Prizes Awarded in Life Sciences for the Discovery of Genes and Biochemical Mechanisms that cause Hypertension
7.2 Calcium Cycling (ATPase Pump) in Cardiac Gene Therapy: Inhalable Gene Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Percutaneous Intra-coronary Artery Infusion for Heart Failure: Contributions by Roger J. Hajjar, MD
7.3 Diagnostics and Biomarkers: Novel Genomics Industry Trends vs Present Market Conditions and Historical Scientific Leaders Memoirs
7.4 Synthetic Biology: On Advanced Genome Interpretation for Gene Variants and Pathways: What is the Genetic Base of Atherosclerosis and Loss of Arterial Elasticity with Aging
1.2 State of Cardiology on Wall Stress, Ventricular Workload and Myocardial Contractile Reserve: Aspects of Translational Medicine (TM)
1.3 Risk of Bias in Translational Science
1.4Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers
Chapter 2: Causes and the Etiology of Cardiovascular Diseases: Translational Approaches for Cardiothoracic Medicine
2.1 Genomics
2.1.1 Genomics-Based Classification
2.1.2 Targeting Untargetable Proto-Oncogenes
2.1.3 Searchable Genome for Drug Development
2.1.4 Zebrafish Study Tool
2.1.5 International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004) Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome.
2.2 Proteomics
2.2.1 The Role of Tight Junction Proteins in Water and Electrolyte Transport
2.2.2 Selective Ion Conduction
2.2.3 Translational Research on the Mechanism of Water and Electrolyte Movements into the Cell
2.2.4 Inhibition of the Cardiomyocyte-Specific Kinase TNNI3K Oxidative Stress
2.2.5 Oxidized Calcium Calmodulin Kinase and Atrial Fibrillation
2.2.6 S-Nitrosylation in Cardiac Ischemia and Acute Coronary Syndrome
2.2.7 Acetylation and Deacetylation
2.2.8 Nitric Oxide Synthase Inhibitors (NOS-I)
2.3 Cardiac and Vascular Signaling
2.3.1 The Centrality of Ca(2+) Signaling and Cytoskeleton Involving Calmodulin Kinases and Ryanodine Receptors in Cardiac Failure, Arterial Smooth Muscle, Post-ischemic Arrhythmia, Similarities and Differences, and Pharmaceutical Targets
2.3.2 Leptin Signaling in Mediating the Cardiac Hypertrophy associated with Obesity
2.3.3 Triggering of Plaque Disruption and Arterial Thrombosis
2.3.4 Sensors and Signaling in Oxidative Stress
2.3.5 Resistance to Receptor of Tyrosine Kinase
2.3.6 S-nitrosylation signaling in cell biology.
2.4 Platelet Endothelial Interaction
2.4.1 Platelets in Translational Research 1
2.4.2 Platelets in Translational Research 2: Discovery of Potential Anti-platelet Targets
2.4.3 The Final Considerations of the Role of Platelets and Platelet Endothelial Reactions in Atherosclerosis and Novel Treatments
2.4.4 Endothelial Function and Cardiovascular Disease Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP
2.5 Post-translational modifications (PTMs)
2.5.1 Post-Translational Modifications
2.5.2. Analysis of S-nitrosylated Proteins
2.5.3 Mechanisms of Disease: Signal Transduction: Akt Phosphorylates HK-II at Thr-473 and Increases Mitochondrial HK-II Association to Protect Cardiomyocytes
2.5.4 Acetylation and Deacetylation of non-Histone Proteins
2.5.5 Study Finds Low Methylation Regions Prone to Structural Mutation
2.6 Epigenetics and lncRNAs
2.6.1 The Magic of the Pandora’s Box : Epigenetics and Stemness with Long non-coding RNAs (lincRNA)
2.6.2 The SILENCE of the Lambs” Introducing The Power of Uncoded RNA
2.6.3 Long Noncoding RNA Network regulates PTEN Transcription
2.6.4 How mobile elements in “Junk” DNA promote cancer. Part 1: Transposon-mediated tumorigenesis.
2.6.5 Transposon-mediated Gene Therapy improves Pulmonary Hemodynamics and attenuates Right Ventricular Hypertrophy: eNOS gene therapy reduces Pulmonary vascular remodeling and Arterial wall hyperplasia
2.6.6 Junk DNA codes for valuable miRNAs: non-coding DNA controls Diabetes
2.6.7 Targeted Nucleases
2.6.8 Late Onset of Alzheimer’s Disease and One-carbon Metabolism Dr. Sudipta Saha
2.6.9 Amyloidosis with Cardiomyopathy
2.6.10 Long non-coding RNAs: Molecular Regulators of Cell Fate
2.7 Metabolomics
2.7.1 Expanding the Genetic Alphabet and Linking the Genome to the Metabolome
2.7.2 How Methionine Imbalance with Sulfur-Insufficiency Leads to Hyperhomocysteinemia
2.7.3 A Second Look at the Transthyretin Nutrition Inflammatory Conundrum
2.7.4 Transthyretin and Lean Body Mass in Stable and Stressed State
2.7.5 Hyperhomocysteinemia interaction with Protein C and Increased Thrombotic Risk
2.7.6 Telling NO to Cardiac Risk
2.8 Mitochondria and Oxidative Stress
2.8.1 Reversal of Cardiac Mitochondrial Dysfunction
2.8.2 Calcium Signaling, Cardiac Mitochondria and Metabolic Syndrome
2.8.3. Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Cardiac Disorders
2.8.4 Mitochondrial Metabolism and Cardiac Function
2.8.5 Mitochondria and Cardiovascular Disease: A Tribute to Richard Bing
2.8.6 MIT Scientists on Proteomics: All the Proteins in the Mitochondrial Matrix Identified
2.8.7 Mitochondrial Dynamics and Cardiovascular Diseases
2.8.8 Mitochondrial Damage and Repair under Oxidative Stress
2.8.9 Nitric Oxide has a Ubiquitous Role in the Regulation of Glycolysis -with a Concomitant Influence on Mitochondrial Function
2.8.10 Mitochondrial Mechanisms of Disease in Diabetes Mellitus
2.8.11 Mitochondria Dysfunction and Cardiovascular Disease – Mitochondria: More than just the “Powerhouse of the Cell”
Chapter 3: Risks and Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis in Translational Cardiothoracic Medicine
3.1 Biomarkers. Diagnosis and Management: Biomarkers. Present and Future.
3.2 Landscape of Cardiac Biomarkers for Improved Clinical Utilization
3.3 Achieving Automation in Serology: A New Frontier in Best
3.4 Accurate Identification and Treatment of Emergent Cardiac Events
3.5 Prognostic Marker Importance of Troponin I in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF)
3.6 High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Assays Preparing the United States for High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Assays
3.7 Voices from the Cleveland Clinic On Circulating apoA1: A Biomarker for a Proatherogenic Process in the Artery Wall
3.8 Triggering of Plaque Disruption and Arterial Thrombosis
3.9 Relationship between Adiposity and High Fructose Intake Revealed
3.10 The Cardio-Renal Syndrome (CRS) in Heart Failure (HF)
3.11 Aneuploidy and Carcinogenesis
3.12 “Sudden Cardiac Death,” SudD is in Ferrer inCode’s Suite of Cardiovascular Genetic Tests to be Commercialized in the US
Chapter 4: Therapeutic Aspects in Translational Cardiothoracic Medicine
4.1 Molecular and Cellular Cardiology
4.1.1 αllbβ3 Antagonists As An Example of Translational Medicine Therapeutics
4.1.2 Three-Dimensional Fibroblast Matrix Improves Left Ventricular Function post MI
4.1.3 Biomaterials Technology: Models of Tissue Engineering for Reperfusion and Implantable Devices for Revascularization
4.1.4 CELLWAVE Randomized Clinical Trial: Modest improvement in LVEF at 4 months “Shock wavefacilitated intracoronary administration of BMCs” vs “Shock wave treatment alone”
4.1.5 Prostacyclin and Nitric Oxide: Adventures in vascular biology – a tale of two mediators
4.1.7 Publications on Heart Failure by Prof. William Gregory Stevenson, M.D., BWH
4.2 Interventional Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery – Mechanical Circulatory Support and Vascular Repair
4.2.1 Mechanical Circulatory Support System, LVAD, RVAD, Biventricular as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation or as “Destination Therapy”: Options for Patients in Advanced Heart Failure
4.2.2 Heart Transplantation: NHLBI’s Ten Year Strategic Research Plan to Achieving Evidence-based Outcomes
4.2.3 Improved Results for Treatment of Persistent type 2 Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Onyx Glue Embolization
4.2.4 Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) vs. Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS): Comparison of CMMS high-risk criteria on the Outcomes after Surgery: Analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Vascular Registry Data
4.2.5 Effect of Hospital Characteristics on Outcomes of Endovascular Repair of Descending Aortic Aneurysms in US Medicare Population
4.2.6 Hypertension and Vascular Compliance: 2013 Thought Frontier – An Arterial Elasticity Focus
4.2.7 Preventive Medicine Philosophy: Excercise vs. Drug, IF More of the First THEN Less of the Second
4.2.8 Cardio-oncology and Onco-Cardiology Programs: Treatments for Cancer Patients with a History of Cardiovascular Disease
Summary to Part One
Part Two:
Cardiovascular Diseases and Regenerative Medicine
Introduction to Part Two
Chapter 1: Stem Cells in Cardiovascular Diseases
1.1 Regeneration: Cardiac System (cardiomyogenesis) and Vasculature (angiogenesis)
1.2 Notable Contributions to Regenerative Cardiology by Richard T. Lee (Lee’s Lab, Part I)
1.3 Contributions to Cardiomyocyte Interactions and Signaling (Lee’s Lab, Part II)
3.4 Arteriogenesis and Cardiac Repair: Two Biomaterials – Injectable Thymosin beta4 and Myocardial Matrix Hydrogel
3.5 Cardiovascular Outcomes: Function of circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells (cEPCs): Exploring Pharmaco-therapy targeted at Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs
3.6 Calcium Cycling (ATPase Pump) in Cardiac Gene Therapy: Inhalable Gene Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Percutaneous Intra-coronary Artery Infusion for Heart Failure: Contributions by Roger J. Hajjar, MD
Chapter 4: Research Proposals for Endogenous Augmentation of circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells (cEPCs)
4.1 Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR-gamma) Receptors Activation: PPARγ transrepression for Angiogenesis in Cardiovascular Disease and PPARγ transactivation for Treatment of Diabetes
4.2 Clinical Trials Results for Endothelin System: Pathophysiological role in Chronic Heart Failure, Acute Coronary Syndromes and MI – Marker of Disease Severity or Genetic Determination?
4.3 Endothelin Receptors in Cardiovascular Diseases: The Role of eNOS Stimulation
4.4 Inhibition of ET-1, ETA and ETA-ETB, Induction of NO production, stimulation of eNOS and Treatment Regime with PPAR-gamma agonists (TZD): cEPCs Endogenous Augmentation for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction – A Bibliography
4.5 Positioning a Therapeutic Concept for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Therapeutic Indications for Macrovascular Disease: Coronary, Cerebrovascular and Peripheral
4.6 Endothelial Dysfunction, Diminished Availability of cEPCs, Increasing CVD Risk for Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs
4.7 Vascular Medicine and Biology: CLASSIFICATION OF FAST ACTING THERAPY FOR PATIENTS AT HIGH RISK FOR MACROVASCULAR EVENTS Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs
4.8 Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) and the Role of agent alternatives in endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) Activation and Nitric Oxide Production
4.9 Resident-cell-based Therapy in Human Ischaemic Heart Disease: Evolution in the PROMISE of Thymosin beta4 for Cardiac Repair
4.10 Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs: Reduction Methods for CV Risk
4.12 Heart Vasculature – Regeneration and Protection of Coronary Artery Endothelium and Smooth Muscle: A Concept-based Pharmacological Therapy of a Combination Three Drug Regimen including THYMOSIN
Nursing School Doesn’t Have to be so DAMN Hard! CPP=MAP-ICP Normal range should be greater than 70 mmHg How to calculate, regulate, and manage CPP or cerebra…
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2004 “for the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation” jointly to
Aaron Ciechanover
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel,
Avram Hershko
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel and
Irwin Rose
University of California, Irvine, USA
Proteins labelled for destruction
Proteins build up all living things: plants, animals and therefore us humans. In the past few decades biochemistry has come a long way towards explaining how the cell produces all its various proteins. But as to thebreaking down of proteins, not so many researchers were interested. Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose went against the stream and at the beginning of the 1980s discovered one of the cell’s most important cyclical processes, regulated protein degradation. For this, they are being rewarded with this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose have brought us to realise that the cell functions as a highly-efficient checking station where proteins are built up and broken down at a furious rate. The degradation is not indiscriminate but takes place through a process that is controlled in detail so that the proteins to be broken down at any given moment are given a molecular label, a ‘kiss of death’, to be dramatic. The labelled proteins are then fed into the cells’ “waste disposers”, the so called proteasomes, where they are chopped into small pieces and destroyed.
Avram Hershko is an Israeli biochemist and winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
Hershko (born December 31, 1937) was born as Hersko Ferenc in Karcag, Hungary. In 1950, Hershko and his family emigrated from Hungary to Israel, where he adopted the name Avram. Hershko received his M.D. and Ph.D. from the Hadassah Medical School of the Hebrew University. In 1965-67, Hershko worked as a physician in the Israel Defense Forces.
In 1969-72, Hershko was a postdoctoral fellow with the late Dr. Gordon Tomkins at the University of California, San Francisco.
In 1987, Hershko was awarded the Weizmann Prize for Sciences, an honor given to top Israeli scientists. In 1994, he won the Israeli Prize for his contributions to Israeli society through biochemistry and medicine.
In 2004, Hershko was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation.”
Ciechanover was born in Haifa, a year before the establishment of Israel. He is the son of Bluma (Lubashevsky), a teacher of English, and Yitzhak Ciechanover, an office worker.[1] His family were Jewish immigrants from Poland before World War II.
Ciechanover, A., Hod, Y. and Hershko, A. (1978). A Heat-stable Polypeptide Component of an ATP-dependent Proteolytic System from Reticulocytes. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 81, 1100–1105.
Ciechanover, A., Heller, H., Elias, S., Haas, A.L. and Hershko, A. (1980). ATP-dependent Conjugation of Reticulocyte Proteins with the Polypeptide Required for Protein Degradation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77, 1365–1368.
Hershko, A. and Ciechanover, A. (1982). Mechanisms of intracellular protein breakdown. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 51, 335–364.
Interview Transcript
Transcript from an interview with the 2004 Nobel Laureates in Chemistry Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose, on 9 December 2004. Interviewer is Joanna Rose, science writer.
Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose during the interview.
Dr Ciechanover, Dr Hershko and Dr Rose, my congratulations to the Nobel Prize and welcome to this interview. I know that you two started as medical doctors but you are in science now, and you get the prize for scientific research. How come you left medicine?
Avram Hershko: Well, I started out as a medical student, I wanted to be a doctor. And during my medical studies I studied biochemistry. That was one of the subjects that every medical student studies, so I liked it very much. I liked, you know, the whole concept of biochemistry, of looking for chemical processes in cells, so we had, we could take off one year from the studies to spend in research in the lab. I also found a very good teacher, Jacob Mager, and I wanted to spend it with him, so I did. That’s how I got involved in biochemistry. Afterwards, I finished my medical studies but already, I, after that one year, I knew that I will go to biochemistry and not to practical medicine. That’s how I started. So, it’s, it’s, like all things in life, it starts by some kind of accident or so, that was the accident, I met a subject during my studies that I liked.
And a good teacher.
Avram Hershko: And a very good teacher.
Was it also a topic, an issue that you were interested in?
Avram Hershko: No, no, not yet, not yet. Mager was interested in many subjects so that was … Actually, I continued with him after my army service as a doctor, and during the course of a couple of years I evolved in four completely different subjects, protein, synthesis, purine metabolism, and a certain disease called glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, because he was interested in many things, so that gave me a very good background, a very, very, you know, very good basic background.
What about you, Dr Ciechanover?
I fell in love with biochemistry …
Aaron Ciechanover: Surely you can repeat the story verbatim. The same very story, I started in the same medical school, and after four years I decided to try and taste, I fell in love with biochemistry, too.
Like ten years later.
Aaron Ciechanover: Exactly ten years later, and I also decided to taste it, and at that time at medical school they let students take one year off for medical studies, try some research, so I went into biochemistry, same very story, different mentor. And, a wonderful mentor, and I studied lipids.
Also.
Aaron Ciechanover: Not proteins at all, and then exactly, made a decision, that that’s it. But I had, because of obligations to serve in Israel in the military as a physician. I completed my medical studies, went to serve in the army, but meanwhile, in between, I was looking already for a future mentor, in biochemistry, and Avram was at the time abroad, in the University of California in San Francisco, and I got rave recommendation, that he is a great teacher and a great biochemist, and I wrote him, and he was ready to accept me, and there started this story. More or less.
So did you go to the States?
Aaron Ciechanover: No, no, he came here. He returned to /- – -/ fellow, he started a new department in Haifa, which was a new medical school, I joined him, not initially on this project, on a different one because I still had to serve in the army. It’s a little bit complicated date-wise, but basically it’s the same very story, mentorship, the same footstep, without knowing where I am going.
You will never know.
Aaron Ciechanover: I never know, but it’s basically, ten years later the same very footsteps.
Oh, that’s funny. What about you, Dr Rose? How did you get …
Irwin Rose: I have an anomalist’s story. It doesn’t, there is no precedent for this. We moved from the east coast to the town of Spokane, Washington, when I was about 13 years old, and I did not adapt very well to the, to the style of the place, and I spent most of my time in the public library. And I enjoyed the company of the Journal of Biological Chemistry, because it was the book shaped thing, in those days, you know, it was the small journal …
Avram Hershko: At the age of 13?
Irwin Rose: No, you know, like a couple of years, you know, I was very unpopular with the other students, and so I read the Journal of Biological … the small, the small Journal of Biological Chemistry, and I found an article I thought I understood. And I read it and I thought I understood it to the point where I could make some suggestions as to how it would be, the experiment might work, and then I was very satisfied with that, and then I … I didn’t spend much time in science at that point. Went into the navy, got out of the navy, tried to go to the University of California at Berkeley, but due to the failure to find the bulletin board announcing the laboratory time of organic chemistry, I couldn’t do my organic chemistry there.
So I said OK, I’ll be a biochemist …
So I went back to the State College of Washington and there I was influenced, I would say, by the embryology teacher, who was a very strong personality in terms of academic research, he tried to encourage his students. Then I went to the University of Chicago and there was a big shock to learn all the new kinds of things that they were teaching there, in organic chemistry and that sort of stuff, and very attractive concepts, and things began to come together in my mind as to how chemistry worked and how I might be able to exploit some of the early kinds of techniques that were being used in organic chemistry into biochemistry, which was something I was attracted to, due to my reading of the Journal of Biological Chemistry. So at that point I signed up, there was a big gymnasium, and people were signing people up for which major you were going to go into. So I said OK, I’ll be a biochemist.
So I entered into the department of biochemistry, never saw the chairman of biochemistry because he was the appointed ambassador to Britain for the United States. So I floated around in the department of biochemistry and learned some interesting things, and then I began to … I never wanted to work with a mentor, because I always wanted to have my own reputation and be free to do what I wanted to do. So I worked with the weakest people in the department. Don’t make that public. No, I don’t mention the names, but … so I did that sort of thing and that way I came to learn some more independence, and once in a while I did a good experiment, and so I had more confidence that I could do research, and so that’s how it got started.
Avram Hershko: Can I mention the story that you did your PhD or eight counts per minute or …
Irwin Rose: Oh yes, well, in those days people weren’t counting, people counted on planchettes. And you …
Avram Hershko: Puckered.
Irwin Rose: Well, it could be, depends on they were flat.
Avram Hershko: You dried them, didn’t you?
Irwin Rose: Yes, you dried them out, depending … yes, that’s right. You had to dry them out, it depends on what the compound was, but if it was trillium you had to get an infinitely thin layer so that you wouldn’t get self-absorption.
Avram Hershko: It’s common, self-absorption on a planchette.
Irwin Rose: Did you guys do that, too?
Aaron Ciechanover: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Avram Hershko: We had a counter with only three /- – -/ so we moved it like that …
Irwin Rose: Oh yeah, yeah.
Avram Hershko: … it was a big excitement.
Irwin Rose: So I wasn’t that primitive. You were doing these things in Israel, an advanced state.
Aaron Ciechanover: You came to our country.
Irwin Rose: I did. I came to Israel. But anyway, yes, so we did those things. And even if you had eight counts above background, if there were eight, there were eight. That’s right. So you could do some experiments. That’s how it worked out.
So how did you meet together?
Avram Hershko: Well, that’s another story. I got interested in protein degradation during my post-doc fellowship in San Francisco, and when I came back to Israel I continued with that, and at that time it was a very obscure field, you know. People, there were all kinds of, not too many people were interested in it. Those that were interested were not very good. So I looked for somebody, and so my first time I think I came up and I looked for somebody to spend a sabbatical with. I couldn’t find anybody that attracted me. So then I met Ernie at a meeting in 1976, one year before, before my sabbatical was due. And do you remember, we met in the breakfast, so I said can I, just began to talk …
Irwin Rose: It’s alright, I forgot.
… it turned out that he was interested in protein degradation. And that was a secret …
Avram Hershko: … breakfast table, so I knew who he was, he was very well known for his work on enzyme mechanism. That I knew, but then I asked him what are you interested in, in other things? So it turned out that he was interested in protein degradation. And that was a secret, it was a secret because he never published anything on it, and I asked him how come you never published anything, and so he said there is nothing worth publishing on protein degradation. So that’s what he said.
Irwin Rose: Yeah, that was my opinion. Well, because I hadn’t done anything, you don’t say it right.
Avram Hershko: OK. Well, that’s how I remember it. And anyhow, I liked that attitude very much, and asked, I asked him can I spend my sabbatical with you? And he said yes, so that’s how it started, and then Aaron, the same year he started his PhD with me, and after my sabbatical the following, the summer after my sabbatical, Aaron joined us, and then he joined us for a couple of summers afterwards, so that’s how, that’s how the whole connection started.
But how come you pick up an obscure field in science, to work on?
Irwin Rose: Well, I’ll tell you, because when I first worked at Yale, the guy who had a lab next to me had made the original observation that there was a protein, there was an energy dependent on protein breakdown. Now, nobody believed him, but he had made some pretty strong observations that if you …
Avram Hershko: Here, we could mention names.
Irwin Rose: Yes, Melvin Simpson. He made these important observations.
Aaron Ciechanover: He hardly believed himself, because when you go into discussion on the paper, you kind of come to a convoluted argument whether it’s a direct requirement or indirect. We can do the conclusion that it’s indirect.
When was it?
Avram Hershko: 1953, so …
Irwin Rose: So I didn’t read the paper, but I had this man in the laboratory next to me and he said, he made this observation and I got very interested in it. And worked on it for, on sabbatical, and when I went to England and when I went to Israel I got mice from Mager, it turned out the same guy, but he wasn’t there at the time, and … but I never found an energy dependence on the protein breakdown. And it turns out later on that a fellow named Art Haas who had been a post doc with me, made the observation that if you’re not careful when you break cells, there’s a lysosomal enzyme that degrades the ubiquitin. So I never would have found it, you know. Somebody else had to make the observation that you could make a self-resistent that … that would show an ATP dependence on protein breakdown. It was not for me, but I did work on it earlier, and that’s the, that’s why I told you that I’d never made any important observations.
But you three work together. How does it work, to do things together?
Irwin Rose: I don’t do anything.
You do nothing? Who is the worker?
Avram Hershko: Well, that’s, first of all, that’s not true. I remember that you made some ubiquitin preparation …
Irwin Rose: I did.
Avram Hershko: Yes, and it fell on the floor, and then you collected it up from the floor … yeah, yeah. That first step is to boil the extra, because ubiquitin is heat stable, so you boiled it but then it fell on the floor, but you picked it up and it was good, yeah.
Irwin Rose: It was good, nothing could destroy it.
Irwin Rose: It was a licence only enzyme.
Aaron Ciechanover: The /- – -/ can take it, but not the floor.
Avram Hershko: But, yeah, but when I came to his lab we already had his first step, which was the fractionation, well, the reticulocyte cell-free system system was actually established in the laboratory of somebody else, Alfred Goldberg in Harvard, but they didn’t …
Aaron Ciechanover: /Inaudible./
Avram Hershko: No, no, but, yeah, but he made it first, he made it first.
Aaron Ciechanover: The first publication was from Harvard, no doubt.
Avram Hershko: But then he didn’t progress, but then he didn’t do what he should have done, which is fractionation. It’s hard to purify right away, but ATP dependent enzyme, he never found it. And what we did was fractionation and constitution, so we already had this first step of separating it into two, two fractions, fraction one and fraction two.
… we didn’t really understand that it’s binding …
So during these two years between the beginning of ’77 when I write to your lab and December of ’79, when we made the breakthrough in your lab, we purified the component from fraction one, we found it a heat stable protein, and then you had a part in that, you also boiled ubiquitin, and then in Haifa we found that it gets … when we labelled it with iodine and we found it gets bound to proteins and ATP dependent reaction, but we didn’t really understand that it’s binding, its co-herent binding the substate until that summer in 1971 in the laboratory of Rose where you invited me, together with Aaron who was then my graduate student in /- – -/ who was there. 1979, 1979. So that is when, when the discovery that ubiquitin …
Irwin Rose: Shall I tell the story about the ubiquitin?
Avram Hershko: Yes. I think I have finished. So then, that’s how I remember it, and how …
Irwin Rose: OK, well, here they had a heat stable factor that was required, and they made the observation that the ubiquitin went on to proteins. And so one of my post docs went to a post doc of another student, of another faculty member at the Fox Chase Cancer Centre, and said, there was a conversation, and do you know of any examples of a protein covalently linked to a protein? And this post doctoral fellow said yes, there is in the nucleus, a protein called ubiquitin that’s covalently linked to histone. And so they rushed to look at the amino acid composition of that so-called ubiquitin, and they compared it to the amino acid composition which you had published, I guess …
Aaron Ciechanover: No, not yet.
Irwin Rose: Not yet published.
Aaron Ciechanover: But in the end it was published back to back with JBC.
Irwin Rose: No, no, no. But how did they know the conversation …
Aaron Ciechanover: No, because they knew, the end story is that the Wilkinson paper came back to back with ours on the /- – -/.
Avram Hershko: OK. Let’s not go into the detail.
Irwin Rose: Well, for some reason or other, they found confidence…
Avram Hershko: They knew that I published that.
Irwin Rose: Really, and I was not a leak.
Avram Hershko: No, no, you were not.
Aaron Ciechanover: No, he was in the lab, he was free and did this. We didn’t hide anything.
Irwin Rose: OK, you’re getting the inside story here. Now, wait a second.
I have a statement from your colleague. “At first nobody cared about your work, and those that knew something about it, they didn’t believe it.” Was it so …?
Irwin Rose: Who said that?
Avram Hershko: That was, that was Fred Goldberg, yeah.
Aaron Ciechanover: Let’s not mention names.
Avram Hershko: Oh! No, we didn’t mention names.
That citation is right.
Aaron Ciechanover: I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you a funny story. I left the lab in ’81, basically after my PhD was completed I submitted it and I went to Harvard, I went to MIT to do a post doc fellow, and Harvard carried out weekly seminars. And in this weekly seminar, one of the founders in the field of proteolysis, one of the originally, not the founder, but it doesn’t matter. A famous scientist in the field presented the weekly seminar at Harvard. I knew of him because he was our competitor for many years, and I went to hear the seminar, so I crossed the river by the bus, I took the shuttle bus that goes /- – -/ and I was sitting in the very back bench. And this was probably about two weeks before you came to visit, it was the very beginning of my, do you remember when I met you, I came to the airport to pick you up.
Avram Hershko: Yeah, yeah.
Aaron Ciechanover: And then, near me, was sitting a very famous scientist that I only later realised that his name is Arthur Dee, a very famous scientist, and after this presentation of the professor, this was only ’81 when we had like eight or nine papers already in the literature with a huge amount of information there. And he was a protein researcher and he raised his hand, I remember very well, and the other guy, when we were both /- – -/ he said, you know, I have a question to ask you. There is a fellow in Haifa by the name of Hershko, and another one with a very complicated Polish name that I cannot even pronounce, that published a series of papers on a small protein that is attached to other proteins and marks them for degradation, can you comment on it? And he basically dismissed it as an artefact.
… it adds to our benefit, because they left us alone for seven successive years …
And I don’t, I don’t criticise him, all I’m telling you it was symbolic for me enough for after eight papers in the literature, this was the spirit in the field from people who worked in the field, and there were very few. As a matter of fact, it adds to our benefit, because they left us alone for seven successive years, even after I left the lab to work out basically the entire system. The next scientist to join the field was a scientist at MIT, Alex Varshavsky, who joined in ’84, ’83, but published in ’84, and given I was there and collaborated, so for seven successive years they let us lay the entire stone down in the literature so I don’t criticise him, actually I appreciate him tremendously for letting us do it. You know, in retrospect.
But I wonder, how do you survive as a scientist when nobody believes you somehow? Nobody’s interested. You become kind of non-visible.
Irwin Rose: You’re making observations, and the observations get published, so the observations are true. Whether anybody will say that belongs to a big story like it turns out to be is not predictable, but so you don’t make claims like that. You say that this is very interesting and so on and so on and so on, and you keep following it up, and it doesn’t necessarily become the centre of attention yet, until you build a big enough story. I think that’s the way it works.
We all survive because funding for research was generous in those days, you know. It’s been less generous now, and we have a peer review system which is more critical and so I think you have to, you have to add successively to the picture you’re trying to portray. It’s not sufficient to just provide data. So I think that’s part of it. But I agree that it’s important to be left alone for a sufficient amount of time in order to be able to do it, and not feel that you’re in the middle of a big activity already, so you know, you need to do that sort of thing.
So do you think you would get support today for such work, which was kind of apart?
Avram Hershko: Well, I hope the fund /- – -/ look up your website and will hear these things. Because it’s … yeah, Joe Goldstein, you know, a Nobel Laureate and a good one, wrote a nice article about this year’s Lasker Award, in which he compared science to a sculpture by this British sculptor who had his stone, it was a huge stone of two and a half ton, on which another stone, and another stone, and another stone, and at the end is a little stone, so he said that in science there are big stones and small stones. The important science is the opposite. When you have a little stone, and on top of it you put a bigger stone and then a bigger stone. If you throw out a big stone at the beginning so there’s a lot of publicity sometimes nothing comes out of it, and the scientist, to find his little stone, on which the other stones can be built. So I recommend to read his article.
Now you find the small stones, Dr Rose, in your kitchen, as I understand it. You have a small laboratory there?
Irwin Rose: You want to talk about my kitchen?
Yeah. Your laboratory, I would say.
Irwin Rose: Well, when I retired from Fox Chase I took my spectrophotometer and a lot of my chemicals, based on a sort of suggestion of Dr … his recommendation. So I took all my chemicals and my spectrophotometer and my constant temperature bath and so forth with me to Irvine, and when the person whose laboratory I was sitting decided to retire, I had to do something with the spectrophotometer and so I found a place in my kitchen for it. And this was very convenient because it saved me a lot of time. I didn’t have to go to work every day and if I had a little experiment to do I could do it in my kitchen. So that was very good, although I’ve got a lot of chemicals that I have no use for and I’d like to take them back.
Aaron Ciechanover: Send them over, send them over.
Irwin Rose: I’ll send them over. I’ll get a box.
Avram Hershko: But I worry that you don’t have an ice machine. You need an ice machine.
Irwin Rose: No, I don’t have an ice machine. But I have a freezer and I can make ice cubes and I can break them up.
It’s kind of worrying, in science. So you can work when everything’s /- – -/ ?
Irwin Rose: Yeah, that’s right, exactly.
So are you the kind of scientists that work all day and all night long, kind of nerd scientists?
So that’s my recommendation, do not retire. Do not retire fellas. …
Irwin Rose: I think we all work all day and all night long. I do. I don’t have any hobbies, you know, I’m very embarrassed when people ask me what are my hobbies, I don’t have any hobbies. I mean, it’s just enough to keep up with the things I’m trying to solve. You know, I used to work on little puzzles and so on and so forth. Each puzzle requires attention and, so you get an idea. You get your ideas at different times. Sometimes your wife makes a statement and you say: aha, maybe you’re right. And so you go off to your kitchen, and do a little experiment, so you try to, that’s the way you make progress, if you continue these things. So that’s my recommendation, do not retire. Do not retire fellas.
Avram Hershko: I won’t.
Aaron Ciechanover: I’m never going to.
You worked together in the beginning, you were the graduate student of Dr Hershko, how was it to separate from each other?
Aaron Ciechanover: Well, it’s the nature of science, I think, because you know, you graduate, you go your post doctorate fellowship, and Avram was gracious enough to bring me back, but now is independent and that’s the entire idea, if you bring a young scientist back, you give him a bench, start up funds, and then you tell him now in five years, come back in five years, and show the committees that you worked for something. So actually, you know, it would be unnatural if we would have continued to work together. So, each of us is independent. Now we’re in the same institute and that’s the whole idea of children that grow up, students that become their own, scientists on their own, I think that’s the way.
Do you compete with each other?
Avram Hershko: No, there is enough to do in the ubiquitin field, we don’t feel that we had to compete. There are different aspects of the ubiquitin field. I am working on cell cycle and he works on …
Aaron Ciechanover: /- – -/. Completely different.
How is it to live in a small country with big problems and to get funds for science?
Avram Hershko: It is not easy, it is not easy. You have to know the daily tension which is of course distractive. The funds are small, some funds for science are small. Graduate students have to go to serve in the army and things like that, so it’s more difficult than elsewhere, but it’s possible, it’s possible.
And now everybody’s happy. About the Nobel Prize. So thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us, and being with us.
NEW Underlying Benchmark for Index Funds, ETFs and ETNs: TA-BIGITech(TM) includes 57 Stocks of Israeli High-Tech Companies Listed in Tel Aviv, New York and London, as well as Dual-Listed Companies
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
The Start-Up Nation Index: New York-Based Company BlueStar Indexes Introduces The TA-BIGITech Index(TM)
The Start-Up Nation Index: New York-Based Company BlueStar Indexes Introduces The TA-BIGITech Index(TM) TA-BIGITech(TM) includes 57 Stocks of Israeli High-Tech Companies Listed in Tel Aviv, New York and London, as well as Dual-Listed Companies, and will serve as the Underlying Benchmark for Index Funds, ETFs and ETNs
TEL AVIV, Israel, March 24, 2015 /PRNewswire/ —
The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) continues to implement the recommendations of the
R&D Committee for promotion of Israeli high-tech companies, and has signed a cooperation
agreement with BlueStar Indexes, a New York-based investment research company engaged in
I fell in love with biochemistry …
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22