Biotech Strategy Blog

Commentary on Science, Innovation & New Products with a focus on Oncology, Hematology & Cancer Immunotherapy

Posts from the ‘Genomics’ category

Development of first selective inhibitor of LRRK2 mutation found in Parkinson’s disease is progress on road towards new therapy

By on April 15, 2011

This month is Parkinson’s awareness month.  Following on from my recent interview (that you can read here & here) with Dr Todd Sherer of The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, I was interested to read about progress being made on the road to towards targeted therapies.

The April 2011 issue of Nature Chemical Biology reports the development of a selective inhibitor of leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2), a gene that is mutated in some patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The team of researchers from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, University of Dundee, Scripps Research Institute and ActivX Biosciences applied a novel, screening strategy focused on selectively inhibiting LRRK2.

The result was the identification of LRRK2-IN-1, a novel analog that inhibits both wild-type and mutant LRRK2 kinase activity. The team confirmed the activity of LRRK2-IN-1 using human lymphoblastoid cells from a Parkinson’s disease patient with the LRRK2 mutation.

Unfortunately, LRRK2-IN-1 was unable to cross the blood-brain barrier, which means that it is not suitable for Parkinson’s disease.  However, this research is progress on the road to LRRK2 inhibition and the development of a targeted therapy in the future.

Moving forwards Parkinsons’ researchers may wish to consider combining new small molecules with nanoparticles that are able to cross the blood-brain barrier; this may be the way to deliver targeted therapies to the brain.

 

ResearchBlogging.orgDeng, X., Dzamko, N., Prescott, A., Davies, P., Liu, Q., Yang, Q., Lee, J., Patricelli, M., Nomanbhoy, T., Alessi, D., & Gray, N. (2011). Characterization of a selective inhibitor of the Parkinson’s disease kinase LRRK2 Nature Chemical Biology, 7 (4), 203-205 DOI: 10.1038/nCHeMBIO.538

AACR 2011 posters: a window into the world of emerging science

By on April 3, 2011

There are 5,396 posters at the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) here in Orlando. Intermingled with the exhibitors (something that no doubt encourages traffic to the exhibits), the posters provide a window into the world of current cancer research and the spirit of collaboration.

Researchers from all over the world present their latest scientific discoveries, what they may have spent 3 years or more years on while studying for a Ph.D or undertaking a post-doctoral fellowship.

The research is innovative, and what’s seen at AACR is often at the cutting edge and shown prior to publication in a major journal.

What is palpable is the energy surrounding the poster discussions as experts, thought leaders and leading researchers network and share ideas with typically more junior colleagues, and in the process relate their experience to the poster being presented.

In a world of fixed term grants, the poster session is also an opportunity to showcase research to those who may be looking to hire new talent to their team.

It takes six poster sessions over four days for the 5000+ posters to be presented. I’m looking forward to the exercise!

Translating Cancer Genomics into Personalized Medicine: Challenges & Opportunities

By on April 3, 2011

Today in the plenary session of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Lynda Chin from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston provided an excellent overview of the challenges and opportunities of translating insights from cancer genomics into personalized medicine that will benefit patients.

I unequivocally recommend listening to the webcast of the plenary when it is posted on the AACR website.

As Dr Chin stated at the start of her presentation, “cancer is fundamentally a disease of the genome.”  The goal of all cancer research is to make progress with prevention, detection and cure.

In the plenary presentation she highlighted some of the successes that have come from understanding the genome e.g. the knowledge of BRAF mutation in melanoma led to the identification of a target and development of a new drug in 8 years.  In addition to the development of novel therapeutics, genomics research has helped companies reposition drugs and she highlighted crizotinib as an example (move from C-Met to ALK inhibition in NSCLC).

These successes have “motivated researchers” according to Chin.  However, it is transformative new technology such as the next generation of sequencing technology that has heralded “a new era of cancer genomics.”  Massively parallel sequencing enables comprehensive genome characterization.

Not only has innovative new sequencing technology increased the throughput, but it has dramatically decreased the costs.  As Dr Chin noted, some have questioned whether cancer genomics is worth it?  She outlined some of the recent successes, such as BAP1 in ocular melanoma (see my previous post on this) as examples of its value.

Challenges remain such as the management of the vast amount of data that genome sequencing produces.  Data management, processing and storage remain issues, as does the need to develop a reference human genome against which a patient’s tumor profile could be compared.

And even when you find a mutation, the challenge is to separate the “drivers” from the “passengers.” This according to Chin requires a “robust statistical framework”.

Cancer signaling is not linear, but is a highly interconnected and redundant network, so it remains a big task to translate genomics into personalized medicine.  According to Dr Chin using mice as models to bridge the gap between sequencing and man may be the way forward in translating cancer genomics into personalized medicine.

Should companies be able to patent human genes?

By on February 14, 2011

That is the interesting question that struck me after reading Sam Kean’s informative article in the February 4 edition of Science.  Ten years on from the sequencing of the Human Genome, the patenting of human genetic information presents unique challenges at the interface of science, law and innovation.

Researchers have obtained patents for isolating different sections of DNA that occur naturally in our bodies.  Whether this should be permitted is still open to debate. Currently, diagnostic companies who want to launch a new cancer test face the challenge that patents now cover many genes.

The Science article cites start-up Foundation Medicine in Cambridge, MA who estimated the cost of investigating possible patent infringement for a new diagnostic test at $35M, a cost that exceeded the company’s $25M of VC funding.

Add in the costs of any royalties or licensing fees and the issue of prior patents is now a nightmare for any diagnostics company.  It is simply not practical to license every gene that may be implicated in a multifactorial disease such as diabetes.  Pre-existing patents have become a barrier to market entry.

As the Science article reports, gene patents cover not only very small snips of DNA, as short as 15 nucleotides, but can prohibit the sequencing of associated DNA. Companies such as 23andMe that sequence an individual’s genome to test for the presence of certain genes may be violating patent rights of others.

What’s more so called “method” patents cover the linking of a gene sequence with a specific medical condition.

As advances in personalized medicine continue, there is a need to balance the competing interests of protecting scientific discovery and rewarding innovation, while at the same time allowing access to human genetic information that many think should be “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Quotation from Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010)

A law suit currently on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may lead to a change in the current practices of the US Patent & Trademark Office.  The American Association of Pathologists and others have challenged several patents relating to the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRAC2 held by Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are associated with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.  The US district court for the Southern District of New York in a surprise decision by Judge Robert Sweet, invalidated Myriad’s patents.  The New York Times article about the case has a link to the Judge’s 156 page opinion.  The decision that isolated but otherwise unaltered DNA should not be patentable is now being appealed by Myriad.

In their legal brief, arguing for the decision to be upheld, the United States Government states:

“The fact that a particular segment of the human genome codes for the BRCA1 protein in a human cell, for example, rather than for adrenaline or insulin or nothing at all, is not within the power of science to alter. Such basic natural relationships may not be the subject of a patent.”

If the District Court’s decision is upheld on appeal, it would represent a fundamental policy shift on what patents can be obtained for human genetic information. Such a decision would prevent Myriad from charging royalties and exclusivity for the genetic testing of BRCA1 and potentially invalidate similar types of patents. Depending on your point of view this will either harm the biotechnology industry or increase the market opportunities.

Given the stakes involved, it is likely the Myriad case will end up being considered by the United States Supreme Court, and what they may decide is anyone’s guess.

To read more in-depth analysis about the Myriad case and the legal issues involved with the patenting of genomic information, I strongly recommend the “Genomics Law Report”, a blog written by Dan Vorhaus and others.

Ten years after the human genome was sequenced we are still working out the intellectual property rights. The question as to whether companies should be allowed to patent unaltered human genes is one that will be answered in the not too distant future.

error: Content is protected !!