Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
A wonderful post by Tony Marcel in Nature Biotechnology highlights some of the structural differences in the way biotech startups are formed in Europe contrasted with bio-entrepreneurship as conducted in the United States. Tony Marcel is currently the CEO of FGene S.A. and gives a personal experience of the European biotech startup scene and highlights the differences, as he sees it, in the unique business development models occurring in Europe versus the US. This post will highlight features from the article.
US model of biotech is not easily transferable to how Europe does business
US model involves developing a specific technology platform then selling that tool, service or platform to pharma for R&D $ and royalties
European perspective is to build networks instead of platforms which can deliver capabilities or one product to pharma
The article discusses three weaknesses identified in the biotech world with respect to Europe and the US
Three ” weaknesses” identified which may affect decision to start a biotech in Europe include:
European academic scientists have trepidation making deals with big pharma
European scientists are not as eager as US counterparts to start a biotech
biotechs still are not as good as pharma in drug development so even their pipeline of “hits” are failing in clinical trials
The article aims to use these weaknesses to define a European way involving
defining management players and market niche early on
reducing the barriers to entry (i.e. legal)
establishing the relationships to increase viability
The full article can be found at the following link:
An emerging European model for bioentrepreneurship
Tony Marcel
Tony Marcel is CEO of FGene S.A., 91, Avenue Kléber, 75116 Paris, France
e-mail: tonymftmcgene@compuserve.com.
The US model for biotechnology is not easily exportable to Europe, but an alternative European business model may be adaptable everywhere.
There is a widespread opinion that biotechnology companies worldwide need to follow business models initiated in the US. These models, generally speaking, are based on development of a specific technology platform. The prevailing wisdom suggests this technology can be sold as a tool or service to pharmaceutical companies or can be used to develop a lead compound that can then be sold to big pharma for R&D dollars and single-digit downstream royalties.
But my experience as a former academic medical researcher who has helped discover, develop, and market drugs for Hoechst, Laboratoires Roussel, Roussel-Uclaf, Rhône-Poulenc Sante, and Amgen has taught me that there is an appealing alternative to this model that may be more practical from the European perspective. Rather than building technologies, one can build networks that have the capability of delivering to big pharma the one product they cannot refuse: validated lead compounds for unmet medical needs.
Identifying a market niche
My background has taught me that an effective way to find solutions is to look at weaknesses perceived by the status quo, and then to develop a strategy to turn them into strengths. Biotechnology’s biggest weakness was its lack of products, in traditional pharmaceutical terms. Relatively few lead compounds have made their way through clinical trials and onto the market. So to separate your company from the crowd, my first conclusion is that it needs to be product-based. It should develop lead compounds that can be sold to big pharma, or take those compounds through clinical trials and to the market.
How do you accomplish this in Europe? I identified three weaknesses from a traditional biotechnology or pharmaceutical perspective that I felt could be developed into strengths. The first was that European scientists are much more risk averse than their American counterparts when it comes to setting up their own business. The legal, financial, and cultural infrastructure to take such a step is far more developed in the US than elsewhere.
The second was that European academic scientists tended to be mistrustful of big pharma’s intentions in licensing discussions. Taking the fruits of their research and developing it into a business is an uncharted area for most, and their unfamiliarity with this process made them cautious.
Finally, biotechnology startups everywhere, not just in Europe, are usually not very efficient in conducting pharmaceutical development. In general, they are discovery-focused companies that lack both the expertise and the contacts in these areas to efficiently manage this process.
These three weaknesses provide the basis for my product-based business plan. The fact that European scientists are not as ready to start companies as in the US makes Europe a source of world-class research not already tied up commercially. In addition, my experience in the pharmaceutical world has demonstrated that a commitment to building a relationship based on trust with scientists and their university licensing departments tremendously enhances the quality of these exchanges and, over time, provides remarkable access to a pipeline of innovative lead compounds.
Finally, the pharmaceutical industry’s move to outsource much of the development and clinical trials process has created a remarkable infrastructure for moving lead compounds through development. One only needed to know when this was appropriate and to have the money to commit to that project to realize a major portion of the development process.
The business model that results from uniting these strengths is a company dedicated not to a specific technology platform, but rather to the development of innovative compounds discovered and patented by academia. The company’s niche is to license in molecules at an early stage and demonstrate proof of principle, and take them through regulatory preclinicals, as well as phase I/II clinicals. At that point, the company licenses its products to big pharma. Profit is generated by the substantial risk-to-reward ratio between the cost of licensing in molecules and the outlicensing price to big pharma.
Management
Contrary to the way many US biotechnology companies are run, the management structure of such a company is not a one-person show. This strategy relies heavily on a supervisory board made up of representatives from European ministries and major European banks. It is also dependent on a scientific advisory board (SAB) with members from key European states. Unlike the boards of some biotechnology companies, the individuals selected are not merely figureheads. They must be committed to an operational role in which they are regularly consulted about the company’s plans.
The key to making this work is to maintain permanent links with academia, the source of new molecules, through publications, meetings, and also through SAB members. One also needs to develop comparable relationships in the pharmaceutical industry in order to keep abreast of licensing-in needs. Using this dual approach, a company will be able to identify discoveries relevant to a major pharmaceutical market before they are published. The company can then select candidates for licensing based on demonstrations of their potentially useful activity, the proof of pilot synthesis and purification capability, and sufficient intellectual property protection.
Given the academic scientist’s aversion to starting a business, where will this network of managers come from? In Europe, the merger and acquisition fever that has hit both the pharmaceutical and banking industries has created a large pool of experienced professionals, acquainted with science, marketing, and business. Some of these individuals will be at a point in their lives where setting up companies is an exciting alternative career.
The challenge for this new generation of European bioentrepreneurs will be to develop their ability to create a new level of cross-talk between inventors and developers. Their core responsibility will be much in keeping with their training: Build and nurture a portfolio of molecules at various stages of development.
Barriers to entry
If this model is so straightforward, why do pharmaceutical companies not eliminate the biotechnology middleman and reap the rewards directly? One of the three premises of this model is that a small biotech company is more able to concentrate on an academic alliance than a large pharmaceutical company. Biotechnology’s close identification with academia through the training of both its management and staff gives it a cultural advantage in assuming this role.
Historically, the model in which big pharma establishes a direct relationship with academia has never proven successful. For example, SmithKline and French invested much of its Tagamet earnings into developing academic alliances to fill its pipelines. Nonetheless, investing a substantial amount of money in these relationships over a significant period of time did not prevent this group from having to merge with Beecham. Nearly every working pharmaceutical executive today has a similar war story.
The reason it has failed for the past 20 years, and is likely to continue to fail for the next 20, is that it concentrates efforts in the hands of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies and key research institutions. The resulting bureaucracy is so overwhelming it not only alienates the scientific innovators, but creates a stifling atmosphere in which decisions simply cannot be made.
But old habits die hard, and this model has long been a tradition in Europe—particularly in France. Therefore, it is likely, if for no other reason than to reap the potential financial returns of such a model, that pharmaceutical companies will continue to make this model work.
However, the important role that biotechnology can play in this process is being recognized by some individuals now in positions of responsibility in pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, and government offices. These individuals are doing their best to support biotechnology’s role in the development of innovative new medicines.
Viability
If you have read this far, you are probably persuaded by the arguments, but may wonder, “If it is such a great business model, why hasn’t anyone done it before?” Well, they have. In 1995, FGene was founded in France as a company devoted to the development of biopharmaceutical products. The company was initiated by the willingness of the Paris-based Institut Pasteur, a major European academic institution, to license molecules to it. This relationship allowed the beginning of the process I have just described.
The resolve of the French government, key players in academia, the investment community, and the pharmaceutical industry to enhance the growth of biotechnology in France is an opportunity we have seized. We have tried to duplicate in Europe the remarkable links developed between biotechnology startups and academia in the US, and hope to create a viable business serving the needs of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies that are literally in our backyard.
In three years of existence, FGene already boasts five products in its active development portfolio: a recombinant protein for the treatment of traumatic spinal section; a peptide for the prevention and therapy of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular ischemia, such as coronary diseases; a selective IL2 receptor agonist for the treatment of cancer; a peptide active on kidney and bone for the treatment of bone and mineral balance disorders, such as osteoporosis; and a peptide for improving male pattern sexual arousal.
We are encouraged that we have made this much progress in such a short time. While this model is still not proven in terms of financial success, it provides a much stronger foundation for growing a biotechnology company than most biotechnology business plans currently in use because costs are directly related to the development of marketable products.
Conclusions
For budding European bioentrepreneurs, this model recommends itself for three reasons: First, it uses unexploited resources that are difficult to access through traditional biotechnology or pharmaceutical models. Second, it is based on pharmaceutical customers’ high-priority needs. And third, it provides a company with a burn rate that is in direct proportion to the realization of a marketable product.
This model has first taken hold in France because of a unique set of circumstances, but its applicability seems uthe commitment of a network of individuals to build a new kind of biotechnology company.
My vision is that companies formed will reinvigorate the European pharmaceutical industry. In the end, everyone wins. Academic science has a new route to receive fair payment for their innovations, biotechnology companies show a rapid timeline to profitability, making investors happy, and pharmaceutical companies fill their pipelines with truly innovative medicines. But the real winner in the end will be the consumer—the rapid translation of genomic products will lead to medicines that improve healthcare at an affordable price, in a much shorter time frame than previously possible.
The ubiquitin system produces a protein that greatly restricts the development of cancerous tumors.
A new study by researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology could hold one key to control cancer cell growth and development. In a paper published in the April 9, 2015 edition of CELL, the team reports on the discovery of two cancer-suppressing proteins.
Distinguished Professor Aaron Ciechanover. Photographer: Dan Porges
The research was conducted in the laboratory of Distinguished Professor Aaron Ciechanover, of the Technion Rappaport Faculty of Medicine. The team was led by research associate Dr. Yelena Kravtsova-Ivantsiv and , included additional research students and colleagues, as well as physicians from the Rambam, Carmel and Hadassah Medical Centers, who are studying tumors and their treatment.
The heretofore-undiscovered proteins were found during ongoing research on the ubiquitin system, an important and vital pathway in the life of the cell, which is responsible for the degradation of defective proteins that could damage the cell if not removed. The ubiquitin system tags these proteins and sends them for destruction in the cellular complex known as the proteasome. The system also removes functional and healthy proteins that are not needed anymore, thereby regulating the processes that these proteins control.
Usually, the proteins that reach the proteasome are completely broken down, but there are some exceptions, and the current line of research examined p105, a long precursor of a key regulator in the cell called NF-κB. It turns out that p105 can be broken down completely in certain cases following its tagging by ubiquitin, but in other cases it is only cut and shortened and becomes a protein called p50.
NF-κB has been identified as a link between inflammation and cancer. The hypothesis of the connection between inflammatory processes and cancer was first suggested in 1863 by German pathologist Rudolph Virchow, and has been confirmed over the years in a long series of studies. Ever since the discovery (nearly 30 years ago) of NF-κB, numerous articles have been published linking it to malignant transformation. It is involved in tumors of various organs (prostate, breast, lung, head and neck, large intestine, brain, etc.) in several parallel ways, including: inhibition of apoptosis (programmed cell death) normally eliminates transformed cells; acceleration of uncontrolled division of cancer cells; formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis), which are vital to tumor growth; and increased resistance of cancerous cells to irradiation and chemotherapy.
The dramatic effect of these proteins on cancer growth: above the two tumors in the foreground (the control group) are tumors that express high levels of the proteins
As noted, the precursor p105 is “handled” by the ubiquitin system in one of two parallel and equally prevalent ways. It is either destroyed completely, or shortened and transformed to p50. The current research deciphers the decision-making mechanism that determines which process will be applied to the protein: when a ubiquitin system component called KPC1 is involved in the process and attaches ubiquitin to p105, the protein is shortened to become p50. When ubiquitination is mediated by another component of the system (and without KPC1), p105 is degraded.
The ubiquitin molecule within all living cells
The decision between these two options has significant implications on the cell, as the presence of high levels of KPC1 (which generates p50) and p50 (the product of the process) – with the accompanying disruption of the normal ratios between the processes – suppresses the malignant growth and apparently protects the healthy tissue. The current research was conducted on models of human tumors grown in mice, as well as on samples of human tumors, and a strong connection was discovered between the suppression of malignancy and the level of the two proteins, clearly indicating that the increased presence of KPC1 and/or p50 in the tissue can protect it from cancerous tumors.
Professor Ciechanover, who is also the president of the Israel Cancer Society, notes that many more years are required “to establish the research and gain a solid understanding of the mechanisms behind the suppression of the tumors. The development of a drug based on this discovery is a possibility, although not a certainty, and the road to such a drug is long and far from simple.”
Professor Ciechanover won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2004 (jointly with Professors Avram Hershko – also from the Technion – and Irwin Rose, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center) for the discovery of the ubiquitin system. The current line of research is a continuation of that discovery.
President Reuven Rivlin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, March 29, 2015 (photo credit: Courtesty Tomer Reichmann)
President Reuven Rivlin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, March 29, 2015 (photo credit: Courtesty Tomer Reichmann)
Days after the Technion announced that a team led by Nobel Prize laureate Professor Aaron Ciechanover had discovered how proteins could be used to suppress cancer and control tumor growth and development, the institute revealed that it had entered into an exclusive agreement with India’s Sun Pharmaceuticals — the world’s fifth-largest specialty generic pharmaceutical company and India’s top pharmaceutical company.
Get the Start-Up Israel’s daily newsletter
and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!
Under the agreement, researchers from the Technion and Sun will conduct studies on how high concentrations of two proteins can protect tissue from tumors. A study published in the medical journal Cell this week discussed how the proteins can suppress malignancies.
Along with Ciechanover, the research team included Dr. Gila Maor and Professor Ofer Binah. In a statement, Ciechanover said that the research held a great deal of promise of an effective drug for treating cancer, “although this is not a certainty, and the road to such a drug is long and far from simple.”
The deal with Sun is just one of several R&D ventures between Israel and India, on both the business and government levels. So far, the two countries have signed seven bilateral economic and R&D agreements, including one that fosters joint projects on space travel and satellite development.
The joint program aims at attracting additional, world-class support from institutions and individuals who are dedicated to eradicating cancer through focused and efficient research.
Two of the world’s preeminent academic and research institutions — New York University’s Langone Medical Center and Haifa’sTechnion-Israel Institute of Technology — have made a “groundbreaking step forward to advance global collaboration in the fight against cancer formally.
On Wednesday night, they announced a $9 million gift from philanthropists Laura and Isaac Perlmutter that will fund two major, joint research endeavors with potentially far-reaching impact in advancing cancer research. The joint program aims at attracting additional, world-class support from institutions and individuals who are dedicated to eradicating cancer through focused and efficient research, they said in a joint statement.
The first $3 million of the grant will finance six cancer-focused research projects to be conducted by teams spearheaded by co-investigators from both NYU and the Technion. The remaining $6 million will be used to establish a state-of-the-art research facility on Technion’s campus that will support these and other research projects and focus mainly on the emerging field of cancer metabolomics.
“NYU Langone and the Technion have a shared, longstanding commitment to advancing cancer research,” said Dr. Dafna Bar-Sagi, senior vice president and vice dean for science at the New York hospital, chief science officer at NYU School of Medicine and a principal architect of the NYU Langone-Technion partnership. “We are now at a great moment in our institutions’ illustrious histories, a point from which we can jointly leverage the talent and creativity of our researchers toward accelerating breakthroughs. The foresight and the generosity of the Perlmutters, particularly at this time of financial challenge in funding for basic research, will have tremendous impact.”
“Bringing together the unique expertise of researchers from both NYU and the Technion will hopefully enable us to overcome some of the most difficult challenges in treating cancer patients,” said Technion Prof. Aaron Ciechanover, the 2004 Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry and Distinguished Research Professor and head of the David and Janet Polak Cancer and Vascular Biology Research Center at the Technion Faculty of Medicine.
Renowned cancer biologist Dr. Benjamin Neel, an expert in the field of cell signal transduction, recently joined the Langone faculty as director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center, and Dr. Eyal Gottlieb, a world leader in cancer metabolism, has been recruited to lead the new research facility at the Technion funded by the Perlmutter gift. Neel will work closely with Ciechanover to lead the collaborative cancer research effort between the two institutions, they said.
In addition, Neel will oversee at NYU the building of world-class translational programs in immunotherapy, cancer genetics/targeted therapies and epigenetics, imaging, as well as expanded programs in clinical care, community outreach and supportive oncology.
The innovative method, developed at the Technion, identifies persons at risk for developing stomach cancer and for detecting tumors at an earlier stage. The prestigious journal Gut, which published the research, notes that the detection method is quick, simple, inexpensive and non-invasive.
Innovative gastric cancer-detection technology
Innovative gastric cancer-detection technology developed by the Technion can be used for the early detection of stomach cancer and for identifying persons at risk for developing the disease. The new detection method, based on breath analysis, has significant advantages over the existing detection technology: Gut reports that the new method is quick, simple, inexpensive and non-invasive.
Gastric cancer is one of the most lethal forms of cancer and in most cases, its diagnosis involves an endoscopy (the insertion of a tube into the esophagus, requiring that the patient fast and receive an intravenous sedative). Treatment is aggressive chemotherapy, radiation and the full or partial removal of the stomach. The disease develops in a series of well-defined steps, but there’s currently no effective, reliable, and non-invasive screening test for picking up these changes early on. Thus, many people succumb to stomach cancer only because it was not diagnosed in time.
The new technology, developed by Prof. Hossam Haick of the Wolfson Faculty of Chemical Engineering, can be used to detect premalignant lesions at the earliest stage, when healthy cells start becoming cancerous.
The research, published in Gut as part of the doctoral thesis of Mr. Haitham Amal, was conducted in conjunction with a Latvian research group headed by Prof. Marcis Leja, based on the largest population sample ever in a trial of this type. 484 people participated in the trial, 99 of whom had already been diagnosed with stomach cancer. All the participants were tested for Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium known to increase the risk for stomach cancer, and two breath samples were taken from each person.
The first sample from each participant was analyzed using the GCMS technique, which measures volatile organic substances in exhaled breath. The researchers noted that GCMS technology cannot be used to detect stomach cancer because the testing is very expensive and requires lengthy processing times and considerable expertise to operate the equipment.
The second breath sample was tested using nanoarray analysis, the unique technology developed by Prof. Haick, combined with a pattern recognition algorithm.
The findings:
Based on the concentrations of 8 specific substances (out of 130) in the oral cavity, the new technology can distinguish between three groups: gastric cancer patients, persons who have precancerous stomach lesions, and healthy individuals.
The new technology accurately distinguishes between the various pre-malignant stages.
The new technology can be used to identify persons at risk for developing gastric cancer.
The diagnosis is accurate, regardless of other factors such as age, sex, smoking habits, alcohol consumption and the use of anti-oxidant drugs.
In short, the nano-array analysis method developed by Prof. Haick is accurate, sensitive technology that provides a simple and inexpensive alternative to existing tests (such as GCMS). This new technology offers early, effective detection of persons at risk for developing stomach cancer, without unnecessary invasive tests (endoscopy). In order to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of the new, a wide-scale clinical trial is currently under way in Europe, with thousands of participants who have cancerous or pre-cancerous tumors.
About Prof. Hossam Haick
Prof. Hossam Haick, who joined the senior staff at the Technion Wolfson Faculty of Chemical Engineering in 2006, has been working since that year on the development of innovative, non-invasive technology for detecting cancer and other diseases. This technology is based on an “electronic nose” – an apparatus capable of detecting illnesses by analyzing a patient’s exhaled breath.
Prof. Haick, a native of Nazareth, completed his Ph.D. studies at the Technion by the time he was 27 and went to the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot and Caltech Institute of Technology in California. He returned to the Technion in 2006 and his research group was awarded one million euros in grants by the European Union, which was very impressed by his research into artificial olfactory systems. Today he heads a consortium that includes Siemens and several universities, research institutes and companies in Germany, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Latvia and Israel. Since joining the senior faculty in the Chemical Engineering Department in 2006, Prof. Haick has won dozens of awards, grants and international honors. These include the Marie Curie Excellence Grant, European Research Council (ERC) grant and the Bill & Melinda Gates Award. Prof. Haick was nominated to MIT’s list of the 35 leading young scientists worldwide, received the Knight of the Order of Academic Palms, from the French Government and won the Hershel Rich Technion Innovation Award (twice), as well as the Tenne Prize for Excellence in the Science of Nanotechnology. He has also been recognized for his outstanding teaching skills and is the recipient of the Yanai Prize for Academic Excellence. In 2014, at the initiative of the president of the Technion, Prof. Haick headed an MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) in nanotechnology and nano-sensors that had an enrollment of 42,000.
This month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Israel and around the world. Innovative technology developed at the Technion Faculty of Biomedical Engineering will enable the prediction of cancer metastasis after the appearance of breast cancer. The technology, whose efficacy has been proven in preliminary laboratory-trials, is entering into advanced testing using cells from patients undergoing surgery.
In contrast to benign cells (right), metastatic cells (left) penetrate into the gel and disappear inside it, thanks to their unique characteristics
Assistant Professor Daphne Weihs recently achieved a research breakthrough: the unique technology that she developed – a biomechanical method for early detection of metastatic cancer – was approved by the Ethics Committee. This means that the technology that was found to be effective in tests on cell lines will advance to trials with tumor cells collected directly after surgery, in cooperation with Rambam Healthcare Campus.
According to Assistant Professor Weihs, the practical concept is that “during or immediately after a biopsy or surgery on a malignant tumor, the system will enable the medical team to quantitatively evaluate the likelihood of the presence or development of tumor metastases in other organs, and to propose which organ or organs are involved. Such knowledge will make it possible to act at a very early stage to identify and curb these metastases and, moreover, to prevent the primary tumor from metastasizing further.
Cancer is a general name for a wide family of diseases – more than 200 – whose common denominator is that the cell division rate becomes uncontrolled and the cells become immortal. In other words, the cancer mechanism disrupts the normal cell division process and converts it into “wild” and rapid division. Since the cells do not age and do not die, the original, primary tumor expands, invades and takes over more and more nearby tissue. In addition, apart from spreading to its immediate vicinity, a tumor that has become very aggressive “knows” how to send metastases to more distant tissues through the lymph and circulatory systems. Metastases (secondary tumors) are usually more dangerous than the primary tumor because it is difficult to identify them at their inception. When they are detected at an advanced stage, treating them medically is more complicated and the medical prognosis is typically not good.
“In fact, most cancer-related deaths are caused by metastases rather than by the primary tumor, and therefore vast resources are invested in developing methods for early detection of metastases,” explains Assistant Professor Daphne Weihs. “Early detection means timely and more effective treatment. The new approach that we are developing will enable early prediction of the likelihood of the formation of metastases and where in the body their development is probable. This prediction is based on identifying the biomechanics of the primary tumor cells, and does not require us to know the specific genetic makeup of the tumor.”
Diagnostic system developed by Technion professor is to pair with tiny smell-sensitive sensor that can go anywhere
By David Shamah February 3, 2015, 2:05 pm
A patient uses the NaNose breathalyzer (Photo credit: Courtesy Technion)
Writers
David Shamah
An innovative early disease detection system that uses the sense of smell is going mobile.
The NaNose breathalyzer technology developed by Professor Hossam Haick of the Technion will soon be installed in a mobile phone – to be called, appropriately, the SniffPhone. A tiny smell-sensitive sensor will be installed onto a phone add-on, and using specially designed software, the phone will be able to “smell” users’ breath to determine if they have cancer, among other serious diseases.
By identifying the special “odor” emitted by cancer cells, the NaNose system can detect the presence of tumors, both benign and malignant, more quickly, efficiently and cheaply than previously possible, said Haick.
“Current cancer diagnosis techniques are ineffective and impractical,” he said. NaNose technology, he said, “could facilitate faster therapeutic intervention, replacing expensive and time-consuming clinical follow-up that would eventually lead to the same intervention.”
According to research done by Haick’s team, the NaNose system has a 90 percent accuracy rate.
The smartphone device is just a vehicle to implement the NaNose technology that can be taken anywhere and used in any circumstances, including in rural areas of the developing world where bringing in sophisticated testing equipment is impossible.
The plan calls for a chip with NaNose technology to be installed in a device that is attached to a smartphone, and for an app to read the sensor data, analyzing it on the device or uploading it to the cloud for processing.
NaNose technology will be especially useful in battling lung cancer, said Haick. According to US government statistics, lung cancer kills more Americans annually than the next three most common cancers — colon, breast, and pancreatic — combined. The reason, doctors say, is because lung cancer is so difficult to detect. Currently, the only way to detect early-stage lung cancer is through an extensive process involving blood tests, biopsies, CT scans, ultrasound tests, and other procedures — and even then, detection is difficult.
“Mostly the patient arrives for diagnosis when the symptoms of the sickness have already begun to appear,” said Haick, describing the drawbacks in current detection protocols. “Months pass before a real analysis in completed. And the process requires complicated and expensive equipment such as CT and mammography imaging devices. Each machine costs millions of dollars, and ends up delivering rough, inaccurate results.”
Dr. Hossam Haick (Photo credit: Courtesy)
The NaNose-based system, on the other hand, doesn’t require anything more than a patient’s breathing into the device in order to come up with an initial diagnosis. Lung cancer tumors produce chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which easily evaporate into the air and produce a discernible scent profile. Haick’s NaNose chip detects the unique “signature” of VOCs in exhaled breath. In four out of five cases, the device differentiated between benign and malignant lung lesions and even different cancer subtypes.
The project is being funded by the European Commission, which has given the consortium developing it a six million euro grant. The developers include universities and research institutes from Germany, Austria, Finland, Ireland and Latvia, as well as Irish cell biology research firm Cellix, with the NaNose system the centerpiece of the technology. That Israeli-developed component will be delivered by an Israeli start-up called NanoVation-GS, a spinoff of the Technion. Professor Haick serves as the start-up’s Chief Science Officer.
“The SniffPhone is a winning solution. It will be made tinier and cheaper than disease detection solutions currently, consume little power, and most importantly, it will enable immediate and early diagnosis that is both accurate and non-invasive,” said Haick. “Early diagnosis can save lives, particularly in life-threatening diseases such as cancer.”
Anyone who knows a person in the midst of chemotherapy is aware that anti-cancer drugs often take a very harsh toll on the body. This is one reason scientists have been trying to develop improved means of drug delivery for years. Now, a Technion research team discovered a way to improve drug delivery to tumors using Nanostructured Porous Silicon (PSi) particles (instead of an IV drip), a method that’s emerging as a promising new platform for drug delivery. In the future, PSi could be used in cancer treatments, potentially offering an alternative to traditional chemotherapy, which is notorious for its agonizing side effects.
The silicon “carriers” used in this study to deliver chemotherapy drugs behave differently in cancerous tumors than they do in healthy tissues. Therefore, the findings could help scientists to design nano-carriers that deliver drugs to tumors, instead of treating patients with traditional, intravenous chemotherapy. However, it would take years to develop and apply this new type of drug delivery method, which would potentially be taken orally.
So far, these nano-silicon “containers” have been studied in vitro – outside of a living organism – rather than in an environment that behaves more closely to that of a tumor in a cancer patient’s body. The Technion research team looked at what happens to PSi particles when they’re injected into the area around the tumor in mice. The significant differences in the area around a cancerous growth and regular healthy tissue have been widely described and studied; however, the effect on these porous silicon “containers,” or carriers, was unknown until now.
Prof. Ester Segal of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, who led this joint study with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Harvard Medical School, said the team has “shown for the first time that bio-materials in general, and Nanostructured Porous Silicon in particular, behave differently when they are injected (or implanted) at the tumor micro-environment.”
Revolutionizing cancer treatments
Silicon materials could revolutionize treatments in a way that no existing drug delivery does. Prof. Segal tells NoCamels that the silicon containers “could deliver drugs over a long period of time – weeks or even months”, something no existing chemotherapeutic delivery mechanism can do currently.
Cancer cells
The special properties of these porous nano-silicon carriers lie in their large surface area, which can ferry many or large drug molecules. Additionally, due to their biodegradability they’re able to break down into harmless silicic acid, which is expelled through urination. They are also biocompatible, so they do not stimulate any inflammation or clotting. Another benefit to these nano-silicon containers is their versatility. They can be ingested, injected or implanted, and they can be designed to carry a wide range of dosage sizes. In the process of their study, lab members also developed an approach to determining how biomaterials will react in settings more similar to their eventual clinical purpose – treating cancer, for example.
In a separate study, Tel Aviv University scientists recently founda strategy that would stop brain tumor cell proliferation with similar nano-particles. “It is a basic, elegant mechanism and much less toxic than chemotherapy,” TAU’s Prof. Dan Peer said in a statement.
These works underline the importance of such studies in successfully developing bio-delivery materials that will have therapeutic benefits in the near future.
“Nano-skeletons’ (in red) delivered to human tissue infected by prostate cancer. The infected cells are colored in blue (PIP) and green (cytoplasmic); it is possible to see how the ‘nano-skeletons’ reach them
Florida native Dr. Beth Schoen, is part of a team developing a novel platform for delivering anti-cancerous drugs directly to its mark as part of her postdoctoral research at the Technion
Beth Schoen, born in Hollywood Florida, came to the Technion to conduct her postdoctoral research at age 26. In her very limited spare time she plays soccer for the leading all women’s soccer team – Maccabi Hadera – and studies Hebrew. “The Hebrew thing is no simple matter,” she confesses, “but I’m willing to make the effort, because it’s clear to me that Israel is where I want to live.”
Dr. Beth Schoen completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Florida, and her doctorate at Michigan State University in chemical engineering. “My doctoral studies focused on synthetic organic chemistry, particularly on the development of polymers with unique thermodynamic attributes especially resistant to high temperatures. These types of materials are used in part for the production of jet engine parts, body armor and Nomex (used for making fire-resistant gloves and overalls). One of our tasks was to create soft sheets that were not brittle, to be worn to be both bulletproof and fire resistant. It was a theoretical study, but as part of the process I also produced some of these polymers and tested them.”
Dr. Schoen planned to come to the Technion as part of her doctoral studies, but, she adds, “It didn’t work out, so I started to check where I could best fit in here in my future studies.” She decided to join Prof. Marcelle Machluf’s laboratory, at the Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Engineering, “I was eager to move from chemistry to biology and pursue cancer research in particular. I was very glad for the tremendous opportunity that Marcelle gave me in taking me on – perhaps it was because of my experience in nanomaterials and polymers.”
Prof. Marcelle Machluf’s research team consists of 17 female and 3 males students, researchers and technicians working on two main projects: (1) the development of scaffolds to rehabilitate damaged heart-tissue, and (2) the development of new technology to deliver drug treatment to damaged (sick) tissue (specifically related to cancer therapy). In an interview with her she focused on the second project.
“The current treatment for cancer involves radiotherapy and chemotherapy usually administered through intravenous infusion. The cancer drugs available are extremely effective, yet the way they are put to use in present day treatment, they also cause damage to healthy tissues. These are very potent drugs – they are intended to kill cancer cells – and on their way they also end up killing healthy ones.”
“The greatest damage is caused to rapidly dividing cells, which are similar to cancer cells. Hair follicle cells, for example, are a type of rapidly dividing cells and they damage easily from these types of treatment, which explains the hair loss in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Other side-effects include nausea and hearing loss, sometimes even leading to deafness. The drug Cisplatin for example, is a type of chemo drug used to treat various types of lung and breast cancers; some of its side-effects include damage to renal and immune system functioning, putting patients at risk to infections and diseases.”
These impediments are what fuel Prof. Machluf’s drive to develop a new drug delivery platforms capable of delivering anti-cancer drugs directly to the tumor without damaging healthy tissues on its way. “This is the top priority of cancer treatment: to develop a ‘magic bullet’ that target cancer cells,” explains Prof. Machluf. “And our new platform may be the solution to this great challenge.”
The new platform is based on ‘depleting’ specific cells – mesenchymal stem cells – so that there is nothing left of them save for the membrane. This membrane, called a ghost cells can be down sized to nano-vesicles, termed nano-ghosts, which can be loaded with any drug and delivered by injection directly into the blood stream. The immune system falls for the trap and does not recognize the ‘intruder,’ instead it treats these cells as if they were naturally part of the system and sends them to the afflicted area. On the way to their target they do not release the drug they are carrying and therefore do not do any damage to healthy tissues. Only upon reaching the malignant tissue, which they know how to identify, do they break down and secrete their contents at the site of the tumor cells.
This original idea was tested in a long series of experiments, and the results are very impressive: these nano-ghosts are in fact tumor selective, no matter the type of tumor. They ‘dash’ straight to the malignant tissue without emitting their drug on the way and without damaging healthy cells. Moreover, this unique ‘parcel’ increases the effectiveness of the treatment by ten-fold. Animal studies have shown that the employment of nano-ghosts for anti-cancer drug delivery have led to an 80% delay of prostate cancer – an unprecedented rate.
Still, there is a lot of work ahead, as Prof. Machluf’s research team works on improving the mechanism of this novel new platform: some of them are focusing on compatibility with specific drugs while others, like Dr. Beth Schoen, are concentrating on improving the nano-ghosts “This platform must be very precise,” explains Schoen. “It must be able to endure travelling through the entire human body, and release its contents only inside the tumor.”
Medicxi Ventures, Formerly Index Ventures Life Sciences, Launches as an Independent Venture Capital Firm and Announces Closing of a €210m Fund including GSK and Johnson & Johnson Innovation
LONDON, GENEVA and JERSEY, February 2, 2016 /PRNewswire/ —
Medicxi Venturescomprises all of the existing life sciencesteam, portfoliocompany investments and life sciencesfundsofIndex Ventures
GSK and Johnson&Johnson Innovationexpand their commitment to the asset-centric approach
Index Ventures technology practice remains unchanged
Medicxi Ventures, a new venture capital firm comprising all of the existing life sciences portfolio companies, funds and team from Index Ventures, today announces the close of Medicxi Ventures 1 (MV1), a new €210 million ($250 million) fund that will focus on early-stage life sciences investments. MV1 will predominantly invest in Europe and principally follow the “asset-centric” strategy pioneered by its partners at Index.
By investing in MV1, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Johnson & Johnson Innovation – JJDC, Inc. (JJDC) have renewed and expanded their commitment to the asset-centric approach, following the prior investment in Index Life 6 (IL-6) alongside other financial investors.
Medicxi Ventures starts its operations as one of the largest independent European life sciences focused investment firms. The Company’s mission is to focus on strengthening R&D innovation by providing solutions to unmet medical needs. Collaboration with pharmaceutical companies will continue to be a key strategy helping the firm to deliver on this mission.
Medicxi Ventures will be managed by four General Partners, Francesco De Rubertis, David Grainger, Kevin Johnson and Michèle Ollier, all of whom previously led the life sciences practice of Index Ventures. The four partners will form the executive management of the new firm.
FrancescoDeRubertis,GeneralPartnerofMedicxi Ventures, said: “We are excited to take this next step in our evolution as a life sciences focused investment firm. A high percentage of the drugs approved every year by the FDA were discovered in European academic labs. By working in close partnership with academia, biotech and the pharmaceutical industry, we are committed to translating this high quality science in Europe into effective new medicines.”
He added: “It has been a privilege working with Neil Rimer, Giuseppe Zocco and the other tech partners at Index Ventures for the last 20 years and we have benefitted from their expertise in investing in and building high growth entrepreneurial companies.”
Dr Moncef Slaoui, Chairman Global Vaccines and GSK‘s representative on Medicxi‘s Scientific Advisory Board, commented on the announcement: “We are delighted to support the Medicxi team and this early stage investment fund. We believe in the potential to create an exciting pipeline of new medicine candidates by collaborating and investing with an asset-centric model. The team at Medicxi has a proven track record in partnering with world-class entrepreneurs and scientists to translate disruptive science from academia and industry into new medicines with demonstrable patient benefits.”
DrRichard Mason, Head, Johnson & Johnson Innovation,London, commented: “Johnson & Johnson Innovation is focused on enabling and advancing all stages of science and technology across the world’s most robust innovation ecosystems. We are optimistic that applying the asset-centric investment model of Medicxi across Europe and beyond will uncover the new and highly differentiated science and technology that is needed to turn early stage research into viable products and patient solutions. We are delighted to work closely with the Medicxi team to help increase the productivity and likelihood of success for the life sciences innovation community throughout the region. ”
The Scientific Advisory Board of the new fund will include some of the top R&D and business development executives from the two pharmaceutical companies as well as Medicxi-appointed executives. As in IL-6, the two pharmaceutical companies have not received any specific rights to the portfolio companies.
Neil Rimer, co-founder of Index Ventures, said: “The creation of Medicxi Ventures as a new entity is a natural evolution given that Index’ life sciences team has been operating autonomously within the firm for several years. Whilst Index and Medicxi will operate independently, we retain close ties and look forward to continuing to share ideas and expertise.”
Notes for Editors
About Medicxi Ventures
Medicxi Ventures is based in London, Geneva and Jersey. It comprises all of the legacy portfolio companies, funds and the life sciences team of Index Ventures, and a new €210 million fund (MV1) that will focus on early-stage investments in life sciences. The Company’s mission is to invest and collaborate along the full healthcare continuum focusing on drug discovery and development and pharmaceutical innovation. Leading healthcare companies, GSK and Johnson & Johnson Innovation-JJDC are investors in Medicxi Ventures’ funds.
Medicxi Ventures’ team has been investing in life sciences for over 20 years and has backed many successful companies, including Genmab (Nasdaq Copenhagen: GEN), PanGenetics (sold to AbbVie), Molecular Partners (SWX: MOLN), XO1 (sold to Janssen) Egalet (EGLT), Minerva Neurosciences (NERV) and Versartis (VSAR).
Francesco De Rubertis joined Index in 1997 to lead the firm’s life sciences activity and has been involved with and overseen all of the investments that Index has made in life sciences
David Grainger joined Index in 2012. Prior to this, David led an internationally recognised research group in Cambridge University’s Department of Medicine, where he published more than 80 first author papers in leading journals including Nature, Science and Nature Medicine. He is an inventor on more than 150 patents and patent applications.
Kevin Johnson has been working with Index since 2003. He focuses on life sciences, especially drug development companies and was part of the management team that floated Cambridge Antibody Technology on the London Stock Exchange. Two of his products, Humira (Abbott Pharmaceutical) and Benlysta (Human Genome Sciences, GSK), are now on the market.
MichèleOllier joined Index in 2006. She has spent more than 15 years in several development and marketing positions at Sanofi International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, RPR/Gencell/Aventis international and Serono International.
Amnon Shashua, Mobileye’s founder and chief technology officer, differentiates his company’s approach from others, including Google parent Alphabet Inc., as relying less on maps to help interpret the road and a car’s surroundings, and more on real-time data analysis from a car’s onboard sensors.
Mr. Shashua, 55 years old, and a computer-science professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, co-founded Mobileye in 1999. He is also the co-founder of OrCam Technologies Ltd., an Israeli wearable-device maker. Mr. Shashua spoke to The Wall Street Journal recently about Mobileye’s approach to autonomous driving. This is an edited transcript.
Life Science Nation (LSN) is thrilled to be back at the annual healthcare conference week for our second RESI San Francisco event. It’s the largest RESI conference yet, with over 700 registered attendees, including over 300 early stage global investors!
We’re delighted that RESI has garnered this enthusiastic audience during a very busy week for the life science industry. We’ve expanded the bandwidth of RESI Partnering in order to offer more opportunities for RESI attendees to connect with each other face-to-face. By using the RESI Partnering system to nd fellow attendees based on t, you can nd meeting partners who align with your focus. With that match as a basis, RESI is a venue for compelling conversations between startups and investors in the life science space.
LSN would like to extend our thanks to the speakers who are participating in RESI’s two Investor Panel tracks, and the presenters of the RESI Workshops. We’re very glad that you’re here to share your expertise with the entrepreneurs and investors who attend RESI.
We’d also like to bring your attention to the RESI Innovation Challenge. The RESI Innovators are showcasing cutting-edge life science technologies in poster displays throughout the exhibit hall. Inside your RESI badge you’ll nd ve tokens of RESI Cash you can use to “invest” in the most promising of these technologies. Take the time to invest your RESI Cash wisely, and join us at the evening reception as we announce the winners!
Thank you for joining us and making this the biggest RESI yet. We’re excited to be here for the rst stop on RESI’s 2016 tour. We hope to see you later this year in Houston, Toronto, and Boston. Until then, enjoy the show!
The Redefining Early Stage Investments (RESI) Conference is an ongoing conference series that will be establishing a global circuit for early stage life sciences companies to source investors, create relationships, and eventually, get funding. The RESI conference focuses on the diverse breadth of early stage investors that LSN tracks, including Family Offices, Venture Philanthropy Funds, VCs, Angel Groups, Corporate Venture Capital Funds, and more. The RESI Partnering Forum allows fundraising executives to identify and book up to 16 meetings with life science investors who fit their company’s technology sector and stage of development. Additionally, through an expansive series of panels and workshops, attendees will have the chance to hear firsthand accounts from investors explaining their current investment mandates and process for identifying and qualifying candidates.
Firms seeking strategic partnerships to build their companies
Investors looking to source emerging technology
CEOs seeking to parse the latest trends in the new investor landscape
RESI is designed to fill the void left by traditional investors by creating and qualifying 10 new categories of investors, including Family Offices, Venture Philanthropy, Patient Groups, Corporate Development, Virtual Pharma, Endowments, Foundation, and Angels.
RESI creates meetings based on a common fit, which promotes compelling conversations, facilitating the development of qualified investor relationships.
RESI recruits conference partners from leading edge incubators and expert scientists from private emerging biotech & medtech firms all over the world.
How is RESI Different?
The shift within the life science investor landscape
The RESI Innovation Challenge is a virtual investment contest, and the investor is you!
As you explore the exhibit hall, you will encounter 30 RESI Innovators showcasing their technology via poster displays. Along with your RESI attendee badge, you will nd ve RESI Cash tokens that you can use to ‘invest’ in the most promising RESI Innovators.
Take a look around this collection of cutting-edge life science technology, and leave your RESI Cash with the entrepreneurs that most inspire you. The invested capital will be tallied up and the top three winners will be awarded during the cocktail reception at the end of the day.
Winners will be featured in the Life Science Nation (LSN) newsletter with readership of 20,000.
• First Prize: Complimentary tickets to 3 RESI Conference Series events of your choice (2 tickets per event)
• Second Prize: Complimentary tickets to 2 RESI Conference Series events of your choice (2 tickets per event)
• Third Prize: Complimentary tickets to 1 RESI Conference Series event of your choice (2 tickets)
Top 10 Little White Lies Told At The JP Morgan Healthcare Conference
Next week kicks off the biggest healthcare investor meeting of the year in San Francisco. It’s a giant circus of activity revolving around the Westin St Francis in Union Square, with more than 10,000 people gathered from biotech, pharma, startups, public equity funds, VCs, banks, law firms, search firms, and anyone else affiliated with healthcare. It’s the biggest annual festival on the healthcare investment calendar.
So in the spirit of kicking things off in 2014 with an ill-advised attempt at humor, here’s a Top 10 list focused on the little white lies that VCs are likely to tell each other, VCs will tell Pharma/Biotech, or vice versa.
10.“We should really do a deal together this year.” Translation: Come find me when you have a great deal you want to syndicate and have done all the heavy lifting already. Or we’ll just have this dialogue again next year, like last year.
9. “We only have one or two more bullets in our current fund.” Translation: We have no more bullets in the current fund. But we think we are good at faking it.
8. “Our latest fund is top quartile.” Translation: Our fund is on the shores of Lake Wobegon, right next door to most other VCs.
7. “We add more than just capital.” Translation: We are thinking of “rolling our sleeves up” and replacing you. Translation #2: We definitely will add more chaos to Board meetings.
6. “We’ve got a ton of Pharma interest in this deal.” Translation: Our next meeting is actually with a Pharma company. Translation #2: You should have seen me work the room at the Pharma Reception last night.
5. “We’re talking to bankers.” Translation: you have a pulse. Everyone talks to bankers these days. And bankers talk to everyone.
4. “We are really keen to find ways of working with you in 2014.” Translation (when VC to Pharma): which of our portfolio companies would you like to buy in 2014?
3. “That was a great discussion of your portfolio/company; thanks – we’ll be in touch.” Translation: We won’t likely be in touch, at least until scheduling the 2015 JPM meeting. But thanks for chatting with us.
2. “You guys don’t seem like other VCs.” Translation: You just might be an even bigger #@!$ than the other VCs we’ve met.
1. “I hate JPM.” Translation: Hate to admit it, I love this meeting – especially having a “business” reason to stay up until 2am drinking at the Red Room.
Venture Valkyrie (and capitalist) Lisa Suennen rightly pointed out that JPM is typically a male-dominated affair, which is why she’s written “JP Morgan: Where the Boys are… And not the Girls.”
In a field where women hold many senior positions in actual US healthcare corporations, they are drowned out at this conference by the advancing horde of finance guys in red ties and the CEOs that love them.
This workshop is focused on delivering results and securing funding at All Levels: Boards, Angels, VCs, Corporate Partners and Other Sources of Funds, with four hours of intensive and interactive discussion, on-your-feet sessions, war stories and insights aimed at folks looking for financing. It is designed to accelerate your funding activities and eliminate unnecessary noise.
Preregistration is required, more information can be found here.
3:00–6:00 pm
Level 4, Cyril Magnin Foyer
All Biotech Showcase attendees are invited to pick up name badges prior to the beginning of the conference on Monday.
Biotech Showcase™ is an investor and networking conference devoted to providing private and public biotechnology and life sciences companies with an opportunity to present to, and meet with, investors and potential strategics in one place during the course of one of the industry’s largest annual healthcare investor conferences. Investors and biopharmaceutical executives from around the world gather in San Francisco during this critical week which is widely viewed as setting the tone for the coming year.
Now in its eighth year, this rapidly growing conference features multiple tracks of presenting companies, plenary sessions, workshops, networking, and an opportunity to schedule one-to-one meetings.
Biotech Showcase delegates include investors in private and public companies, sector analysts, bankers and industry professionals, as well as biopharmaceutical and life science company executives.
Biotech Showcase is produced by Demy Colton Life Science Advisors and EBD Group. Both organizations have a long history of producing high quality programs that support the biotechnology and broader life sciences industry.
J.P. MORGAN HEALTHCARE CONFERENCE 2016 SURVIVAL GUIDE
Whether you’re a conference veteran or a rookie, we hope this light-hearted guide helps you survive the week of life science mayhem in San Fransisco. At Chempetitive Group, we have a deep passion for everything life science—its people, its processes and its promise for the future. As life science marketers, this passion takes us to the industry’s biggest events every year, including the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference and related conferences each January. Over the years, we’ve learned our way around San Francisco’s Union Square—places we like to frequent.
Each January, the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference – perhaps the life science industry’s largest and most frenzied conference of the year – reliably draws thousands of investors and executives across the healthcare sector to San Francisco’s Union Square neighborhood as hundreds of companies present their latest innovations and dreams in an attempt to pique the interest of venture capitalists and potential partners. In addition to J.P. Morgan, parallel events Biotech Showcase, OneMedForum and RESI Conference ensure that there is a high density of biotech brainpower and capital in the City by the Bay.
The conference week is a mix of long days of presentations and lively evenings of cocktail parties and networking events. With more than 50 networking receptions, days of sessions, and still a volume of work to manage while away from the office, you might need some guidance on where to take your client or potential partner for a meeting, where to refuel or caffeinate, or simply where to hide from the chaos. For these reasons, we decided to let you into our world by creating this simple guide to surviving the 2016 J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference week.
Download it and, if you happen to find yourself in one of our favorite spots, let us know with a direct message on Twitter at @chempetitive. Safe travels, have fun, and get some deals done.
JP Morgan 2016 Healthcare Conference Participants
The following organizations have released announcements of their participation in the 34th Annual JP Morgan Healthcare Conference:
Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals: Google’s Profile by VB
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Company Google News, Employees and Funding Information, Mountain View, CA
COMPANY
Google
Location: Mountain View, CA
Google is a multinational corporation that is specialized in internet-related services and products. The company’s product portfolio includes Google Search, which provides users with access to information online; Knowledge Graph that allows to search for things, people, or places as well as builds systems recognizing speech and understanding natural language; Google Now, which provides information to users when they need it; Product Listing Ads that offer product image, price, and merchant information; AdWords, an auction-based advertising program; AdSense, which enables websites that are part of the Google Network to deliver ads; Google Display, a display advertising network; DoubleClick Ad Exchange, a marketplace for the trading display ad space; and YouTube that offers video, interactive, and other ad formats.
As on October 2, 2015, Google became Alphabet’s leading subsidiary, as well as the parent for Google’s Internet interests.
Investment Trends in Series A and B by Major and by Micro US Venture Capital Firms
Reporters: Gerard Loiseau, ESQ and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Introduction by Gerard Loiseau, ESQ
The Future of Funding for Early-Stage Start-Ups in the Healthcare Businesses
Is Smart Money Pulling Back From Early-Stage Start-ups and if the answer is Yes, why ?
In an article as of Monday, 02 February 2015 originally posted on GigaOM,
Bryan Dow, Executive Director at Mooreland Partners was talking about M&A and 3D Printing Collide.
As part of his expose, he talks about “the financing: filling the gaps” where he explains that “Strategic investors also currently consider 3D printing to be ‘non-investable’ due to the long lead time for business development. Size plays an important role, too. 3D printing companies just don’t have the revenue or EBITDA necessary to fit the threshold requirements.”
So how are Early-Stage Start-ups funding their development in the 3D Printing business ? Mainly Crowdfunding is the answer with companies like Kickstarter and Indiegogo.
In an interview at McKinsey & Co., Eric Schadt, M.D., founding director of the Icahn Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology at New York’s Mount Sinai Health System, says questions will become easier to answer as more data is pulled together.
He says: “Technology is revolutionizing our understanding and treatment of disease”
Evolution? Revolution?
Big Data will help to build predictive models by aggregating more and more information from all the components of a disease.
It is evolution but will be very fast a revolution.
Big data are always used by Google, Amazon, (—), and the same processes can be applied to medicine. (The first subsidiary of Alphabet is Life Sciences Group@Google, now Verily)
About Wearables.
Mobile health apps utilization represents the future, and wearable-device allows anyone to manage one’s situation and/or to be managed in case of deviations from the “baseline”.
Big Data, patients, payers and pharma.
It introduces a partnership with the Patients, who will get a dashboard about their health situation.
Payers will be able to control the slide into a disease state and so to save money.
They will get better risk profiles.
Device makers can taka advantage of this new business model.
Pharma will be able to better understand the causal players of disease.
Talents
Experts have to be recruited according to this nearby new “ecosystem”
Translation will be a key item.
A major problem is the transformation of the life sciences, driven by this quantitative, statistical, computational model.
Mathematics and computer science will be essential.
Gina Hall , Contributor, Silicon Valley Business Journal, says : Startup founders may have to work a little harder for funding as top venture capital firms pull out of early stage investing.
Gina Hall mentions a CB Insights report « The investment research firm said there were only 67 angel and Series A deals in the third quarter of 2015, the lowest quarterly count since the fourth quarter of 2010, which saw 64 deals”
Bill Maris, president and chief executive of Google Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz both said that they scaled down seed investments about two years ago.
They do consider that the number of candidates is increasing in huge proportions.
Tess Townsend, Staff reporter, Inc.com@Tess_Townsend says : ‘Smart Money’ Is Getting Scarce for Startups
Investment in tech is rising, but less and less money is coming from top venture capital firms. What do they know that everyone else is just figuring out?
“Filling the place of smart money venture capitalists are investors with less experience in the market, such as mutual funds better known for public-market investing,” states The Information.
“Four of the last 5 quarters have seen more than $200M in digital health financings involving the top 20 smart money VCs.”
Even if CB Insights comments on December 14 :
Data points on active corporates:
“The number of digital health investments in total was small, with pharma corps with only 28 deals involving pharma corps since 2013”
Healthcare Start-ups Boom: 2015 Could See More Than $12B Invested Into VC-Backed Companies : CB Insights September 1/, 2015
There have been more than 400 healthcare deals in the first half of 2015, and the year is on track for a five-year high in funding.
Investment by Blue Chip VCs
Series A
Series B
Private Tech Global Financing
First 9 month Stage A Funding
# of Seres A Rounds
%
%
$
$Billion
# of Transactions
2012
137.4
2013
7.5
11.4
165.2
2.0
243
2014
6.1
11.2
278.1
2.0
219
Est. 2015
5.3
9.0
241.7
1.3
115
SOURCE
SignalFire, San Francisco
COMMENT: That growth is occurring in later-stage companies, series B and later; funding in the seed and series A rounds is down 20.5% and 28% in the first nine months compared with the same period last year, respectively.
DEFINITIONS by SignalFire: Series A: $4 million and $12 million
Start-ups will have to adapt to these new challenges.
The biggest evolution is linked to Big Data and so to the New Entrants like Alphabet and Apple.
They are designing the future and the Cloud is their battlefield, following the pioneer, Amazon.com
People will wear the sensors allowing to identify variation in vital signs and indications of the state of their diseases. The transmission will be done through watches and other mobile devices in the Internet of Things (IoT) to the cloud and they will get a direct ping as their answer.
Labs and hospitals will be managed by their IT Data managed trough out the Cloud.
The New Entrants will create THEIR own “medical centres” that will be Virtual.
They will provide the data, infrastructure, information and training to all the constituencies including Patient’s access to EMR.
Intelligent Medical Centre will operate the representation of completely reshaped existing workflows.
Start-ups will have to adapt to these new challenges by embracing the new reality.
The following article concerns trends seen in early round investment landscape in the United States, focusing on Seed Round and Series A and B Venture Capital and can be read at
What’s Really Happening In The US Venture Fundraising Market In Early 2016
The startup fundraising market in 2016 has been difficult to characterize. Punctuated by a concentrated decline in public tech stocks, the sentiment in Startupland has changed from resolute ebullience to a calmness approaching caution. Two months in, we can analyze January and February data. This posts analyses US headquartered information technology companies which VC-led investment rounds, except for the $793M Series C in Magic Leap, which I excluded as an outlier.
VCs invested about $2B in January and February 2016. The January figure equals the previous year, but February dollars deployed halved compared to 2015, reverting to 2014 levels.
The count of investments fell in January by 44% to roughly 130 and remained there in February.
For January investment round volumes to fall and for total dollars invested to remain the same, VCs must have invested in a disproportionate share of large, later stage rounds. As the year continued, round volumes held steady, but total dollars invested halved indicating the typical investment fell substantially. And the median investment chart above supports this hypothesis.
Let’s break this overall figure into Series A, B, C and Seed median investment sizes. Series As have fallen from their late 2015 highs by about 20%. The median Series B totals less than $15M, down 25% from the 2015 highs. Series Cs are stable at about $35M, and seed rounds continue their ascent with the typical Seed round at more than $2M.
The Seed round figure might be spurious. Without a fixed definition of a seed round, this number can move as the market includes a greater or lesser number of financings in this colloquial term.
We can segment the data by round size: rounds less than $2.5M, $15M, $50M, and greater 50+. Median seed rounds are then dominated by the +/- $150k initial investments of incubators and accelerators with large new portfolios like YCombinator and 500Startups whose demo days are fast approaching. The differing data points suggest to me small Series As and Seeds are being further conflated; for entrepreneurs it’s often better to characterize a $3M round as a seed, rather than a Series A.
No analysis is perfect. But this data does provide a lens into the state of the fundraising market. Series A and B sizes are down from their highs. Overall investment in February halved. But the data raises more questions.
What is really happening with seed round size? Was VC activity in February an aberration or representative of a deeper change in sentiment? In all likelihood, February was a bit of a wait-and-see month. Most importantly, the data supports the notion that investors are still looking to invest, and round sizes are relatively stable. with the exception of the B. The Series B will likely be the most challenging round to raise in the beginning of this year.
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa