Biopharmconsortium Blog

Expert commentary from Haberman Associates biotechnology and pharmaceutical consulting.

Monthly Archives: October 2013

Chemokine receptors and the HIV-1 entry inhibitor maraviroc



In April 2012, Informa’s Scrip Insights published our book-length report, “Advances in the Discovery of Protein-Protein Interaction Modulators.” We also published a brief introduction to this report, highlighting the strategic importance of protein-protein interaction (PPI) modulators for the pharmaceutical industry, on the Biopharmconsortium Blog.

The report included a discussion on discovery and development of inhibitors of chemokine receptors. Chemokine receptors are members of the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily. GPCRs are seven-transmembrane (7TM) domain receptors (i.e. integral membrane proteins that have seven membrane-spanning domains). Compounds that target GPCRs represent the largest class of drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry. However, in the vast majority of cases, these compounds target GPCRs that bind to natural small-molecule ligands.

Chemokine receptors, however, bind to small proteins, the chemokines. These proteins constitute a class of small cytokines that guide the migration of immune cells via chemotaxis. Chemokine receptors are thus a class of GPCRs that function by forming PPIs. Direct targeting of interactions between chemokines and their receptors (unlike targeting the interactions between small-molecule GPCR ligands and their receptors) thus involves all the difficulties of targeting other types of PPIs.

However, GPCRs–including chemokine receptors–appear to be especially susceptible to targeting via allosteric modulators. Allosteric sites lie outside the binding site for the protein’s natural ligand. However, modulators that bind to allosteric sites change the conformation of the protein in such a way that it affects the activity of the ligand binding site. (Direct GPCR modulators that bind to the same site as the GPCR’s natural ligands are known as orthosteric modulators.) In the case of chemokine receptors, researchers can in some cases discover small-molecule allosteric modulators that activate or inhibit binding of the receptor to its natural ligands. Discovery of such allosteric activators is much easier than discovery of direct PPI modulators.

Chemokines bind to sites that are located in the extracellular domains of their receptors. Allosteric sites on chemokine receptors, however, are typically located in transmembrane domains that are distinct from the chemokine binding sites. Small-molecule allosteric modulators that bind to these sites were discovered via fairly standard medicinal chemistry and high-throughput screening, sometimes augmented with structure-based drug design. This is in contrast to attempts to discover small molecule agents that directly inhibit binding of a chemokine to its receptor, which has so far been extremely challenging.

Our report describes several allosteric chemokine receptor modulators that are in clinical development, as well as the two agents that have reached the market. One of the marketed agents, plerixafor (AMD3100) (Genzyme’s Mozobil), is an inhibitor of the chemokine receptor CXCR4. It is used in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells to the peripheral blood for autologous transplantation in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. The other agent, which is the focus of this blog post, is maraviroc (Pfizer’s Selzentry/Celsentri).

Maraviroc is a human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) entry inhibitor. This compound is an antagonist of the CCR5 chemokine receptor. CCR5 is specific for the chemokines RANTES (Regulated on Activation, Normal T Expressed and Secreted) and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP) 1α and 1β.  In addition to being bound and activated by these chemokines, CCR5 is a coreceptor (together with CD4) for entry of the most common strain of HIV-1 into T cells. Thus maraviroc acts as an HIV entry inhibitor; this is the drug’s approved indication in the U.S. and in Europe. Maraviroc was discovered via a combination of high-throughput screening and optimization via standard medicinal chemistry.

New structural biology studies of the CCR5-maraviroc complex

Now comes a report in the 20 September 2013 issue of Science on the structure of the CCR5-maraviroc complex. This report was authored by a mainly Chinese group led by Beili Wu, Ph.D. (Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai); researchers at the University of California at San Diego and the Scripps Research Institute, San Diego were also included in this collaboration. A companion Perspective in the same issue of Science was authored by P. J. Klasse, M.D., Ph.D. (Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY).

As described in the Perspective, the outer surface of the HIV-1 virus displays numerous envelope protein (Env) trimers, each including the outer gp120 subunit anchored in the viral membrane by gp41. When gp120 binds to the cell-surface receptor CD4, this enables interaction with a specific chemokine receptor, either CCR5 or CXCR4. Interaction with both CD4 and the chemokine receptor triggers complex sets of changes in the Env complex, eventually resulting in the fusion of the viral membrane and the cell membrane, and the entry of the virus particle into the host cell.

HIV-1 gp120 makes contact with CCR5 at several points. The interactions between CCR5 and the variable region of gp120 called V3 are especially important for the tropism of an HIV-1 strain, i.e., whether the virus is specific for CCR5 (the “R5 phenotype”) or CXCR4 (the “X4 phenotype”). In the case of R5-tropic viruses, the tip of the V3 region interacts with the second extracellular loop (ECL2) of CCR5, while the base of V3 interacts with the amino-terminal segment of CCR5. Modeling of the interactions between the V3 domain of gp120 of either R5 or X4-tropic viruses with CCR5 or CXCR4 explains coreceptor use, in terms of forming strong bonds or–conversely–weak bonds and steric hindrance.

Monogram Biosciences (South San Francisco, CA) has developed and markets the Trofile assay. This is a molecular assay designed to identify the R5, X4, or mixed tropism of a patient’s HIV strain. If a patient’s strain is R5-tropic, then treatment with maraviroc is appropriate. However, a patient’s HIV-1 strain may undergo a tropism switch, or may mutate in other ways to become resistant to maraviroc.

Dr Wu and her colleagues determined the high-resolution crystal structure of the complex between maraviroc and a solubilized engineered form of CCR5. This included determining the CCR5 binding pocket for maraviroc, which was determined both by Wu et al’s X-ray crystallography, and by site-directed mutagenesis (i.e., to determine amino acid residues that are critical for maraviroc binding) that had been published earlier by other researchers.

The structural studies of Dr. Wu and her colleagues show that the maraviroc-binding site is different from the recognition sites for gp120 and for chemokines, as expected for an allosteric inhibitor. The X-ray structure shows that maraviroc binding prevents the helix movements that are necessary for binding of g120 to induce the complex sequence of changes that result in fusion between the viral and cellular membranes. (These helix movements are also necessary for induction of signal transduction by binding of chemokines to CCR5.)

Structural studies of CXCR4 and its inhibitor binding sites

In addition to their structural studies of the CCR5-maraviroc complex, Dr. Wu and her colleagues also published structural studies of CXCR4 complexed with small-molecule and cyclic peptide inhibitors in Science in 2010. These inhibitors are IT1t, a drug-like orally-available isothiourea developed by Novartis, and CVX15, a 16-residue cyclic peptide that had been previously characterized as an HIV-inhibiting agent. IT1t and CVX15 bind to overlapping sites in CXCR4. Other researchers have found evidence that the binding site for plerixafor also overlaps with the IT1t binding site.

As discussed in Wu et al’s 2013 paper, CCR5 and CXCR4 have similar, but non-identical structures. The binding site for IT1t in CXCR4 is closer to the extracellular surface than is the maraviroc binding site in CCR5, which is deep within the CCR5 molecule. The entrance to the CXCR4 ligand-binding pocket is partially covered by CXC4’s N terminus and ECL2, but the CCR5 ligand-binding pocket is more open.

Mechanisms of CXCR4 and CCR5 inhibition, and implications for discovery of improved HIV entry inhibitors

The chemokine that specifically interacts with the CXCR4 receptor is known as CXCL12 or stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1). Researchers have proposed a hypothesis for how CXCL12 interacts with CXCR4; this hypothesis appears to be applicable to the interaction between other chemokines and their receptors as well. This hypothesis is know as the “two-step model” or the “two-site model” of chemokine-receptor activation. Under the two-site model, the core domain of a chemokine binds to a site on its receptor (known as the “chemokine recognition site 1” or “site 1”) defined by the receptor’s N-terminus and its ECLs. In the second step, the flexible N-terminus of the chemokine interacts with a second site (known as “chemokine recognition site 2” or “site 2” or the “activation domain”) deeper within the receptor, in transmembrane domains. This result in activation of the chemokine receptor and intracellular signaling.

Under the two-site model, CXCR4 inhibitors (e.g., IT1t, CVX15, and  plerixafor), which bind to sites within the ECLs of CXCR4, are competitive inhibitors of binding of the core domain of CXCL12 to CXCR4 (i.e.., step 1 of chemokine/receptor interaction). They are thus orthosteric inhibitors of CXCR4. (This is contrary to the earlier assignment of plerixafor as an allosteric inhibitor of CXCR4.)  The CCR5 ligand maraviroc, however, binds within a site within the transmembrane domains of CCR5, which overlaps with the activation domain of CCR5. Dr. Wu and her colleagues propose two alternative hypotheses: 1. Maraviroc may inhibit CCR5 activation by chemokines by blocking the second step of chemokine/chemokine receptor interaction, i.e., receptor activation. 2. Maraviroc may stabilize CCR5 in an inactive conformation. It is also possible that maraviroc inhibition of CCR5 may work via both mechanisms.

Dr. Wu and her colleagues further hypothesize that the interaction of  HIV-1 gp120 with CCR5 (or CXCR4) may operate via similar mechanisms to the interaction of chemokines with their receptors. As we discussed earlier in this article, the base (or the stem region) of the gp120 V3 domain interacts with the amino-terminal segment of CCR5. The tip (or crown) of the V3 domain interacts with the ECL2 of CCR5, and–according to Dr. Wu and her colleagues–also with amino acid residues inside the ligand binding pocket; i.e., the activation site of CCR5. The HIV gp120 V3 domain may thus activate CCR5 via a similar mechanism to the two-step  model utilized by chemokines.

Based on their structural biology studies, Dr. Wu and her colleagues have been building models of the CCR5-R5-V3 and CXC4-X4-V3 complexes, and are also planning to determine additional structures needed to fully understand the mechanisms of HIV-1 tropism. The researchers will utilize their studies in the discovery of improved, second-generation HIV entry inhibitors for both R5-tropic and X4-tropic strains of HIV-1.

The bigger picture

The 17 October 2013 issue of Nature contains a Supplement entitled “Chemistry Masterclass”. In that Supplement is an Outlook review entitled “Structure-led design”, by Nature Publishing Group Senior Editor Monica Hoyos Flight, Ph.D. The subject of this article is structure-based drug design of modulators of GPCRs.
This review outlines progress in determining GPCR structures, and in using this information for discovery of orthosteric and allosteric modulators of GPCRs.

According to the article, the number of solved GPCR structures has been increasing since 2008, largely due to the efforts of the Scripps GPCR Network, which was established in that year. Dr. Wu started her research on CXCR4 and CCR5 as a postdoctoral researcher in the laboratory of Raymond C. Stevens, Ph.D. at Scripps in 2007, and continues to be a member of the network. The network is a collaboration that involves over a dozen academic and industrial labs. Its goal has been to characterize at least 15 GPCRs by 2015; it has already solved 13.

Interestingly, among the solved GPCR structures are those for the corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor and the glucagon receptor. Both have peptide ligands, and thus work by forming PPIs.

One company mentioned in the article, Heptares Therapeutics (Welwyn Garden City, UK), specializes in discovering new medicines that targeting previously undruggable or challenging GPCRs. In addition to discovering small-molecule drugs, Heptares, working with monoclonal antibody (MAb) leaders such as MorphoSys and MedImmune, is working to discover MAbs that act as modulators of GPCRs. Among Heptares’ targets are several GPCRs with peptide ligands.

Meanwhile, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. has developed the MAb drug mogamulizumab (trade name Poteligeo), which is approved in Japan for treatment of relapsed or refractory adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. Mogamulizumab targets CC chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4).

Thus, aided in part by structural biology, the discovery of novel drugs that target GPCRs–including those with protein or peptide targets such as chemokine receptors–continues to make progress.


As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company,  please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Obesity, sarcopenia, aging, and health


In our  June 25, 2010 article on the Biopharmconsortium Blog, we discussed the “contrarian” views of Dr. Katherine M. Flegal and her colleagues at the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the epidemiology of obesity.

According to Dr. Flegal, based on epidemiological data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), people in the overweight class have a lower risk of death than those in either the normal weight or the obese class. These weight classes are determined on the basis of the body mass index (BMI), with underweight at <18.5, normal weight at 18.5-24.9,  overweight at 25-29.9, and obesity at >30.

Dr. Flegal’s conclusions–as summarized in our 2010 article–were mainly based on work published in the 2005-207 period, as well as other analyses of her results published between 2005 and 2010. In January 2013, Dr. Flegal and her colleagues published a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This report was based on an analysis of a wide variety of published reports indexed in PubMed and EMBASE that reported all-cause mortality for weight categories based on standard BMI categories.

In this study, the researchers compared all-cause mortality in the normal weight class (BMI 18.5-24.9) with that in the overweight (BMI 25-<30), grade 1 obese (BMI of 30-<35) and grade 2 and 3 obese (BMI of ≥35) classes. They came to similar conclusions as in their earlier studies. Specifically, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality as compare to normal weight. Grade 1 obesity was not associated with higher all-cause mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality.

Reactions to Dr. Flegal’s 2013 study

As usually happens when one of Dr. Flegal’s “contrarian” studies is published, other leaders of the obesity epidemiology and nutrition community who hold the “majority” view react strongly against it. This was detailed, for example, in a feature article  in the 23 May issue of Nature written by science writer Virginia Hughes. On 20 February 2013, a meeting was held at the Harvard School of Public Health “to explain why [Dr. Flegal’s new study] was absolutely wrong”. The organizer of the meeting, Dr. Walter Willett, said in an earlier radio interview, “This study is really a pile of rubbish, and no one should waste their time reading it.” At the meeting, speaker after speaker got up to criticize the Flegal study.

The major concern of Dr. Willett and the other speakers was that Dr. Flegal’s study (and the commentary on that study in the popular press) would serve as a license for the general public and for doctors to let up on weight loss programs, and to undermine public policies aimed at curbing the rate of obesity. Dr. Willett was also concerned that the Flegal studies might be “hijacked by powerful special-interest groups, such as the soft-drink and food lobbies, to influence policy-makers”.

Nevertheless, as also detailed in Ms. Hughes’ article, other researchers accept Dr. Flegal’s results, and see them as part of the evidence for what they call “the obesity paradox”. Although for the general population overweight increases one’s risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, overweight in some populations may not be harmful and may even lower the risk of death. These populations especially include people over 50 and especially those over 60 or 70, as well as patients with cardiovascular disease or cancer. We also discussed the decreased association of mortality with weight in older people in our June 25, 2010 article.

Explaining the “obesity paradox”, and the need for better metrics than BMI

In the 23 August issue of Science, Rexford S. Ahima, M.D., Ph.D. and Mitchell A. Lazar, MD., Ph.D. (both metabolic disease researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA) published a Perspective entitled “The Health Risk of Obesity—Better Metrics Imperative”. The goal of this essay was to enable researchers to find better means to study and to explain the “obesity paradox”, and to use the results of their studies to improve the health of patents with metabolic diseases and their complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease).

These researchers noted that although it is easily measured and widely used, BMI does not adequately measure body composition (especially the proportion of muscle and fat) and the distribution of fat in the body. These factors may be especially important for such health outcomes as development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular risk. Other researchers, notably Dr. José Viña and his colleagues at the University of Valencia in Spain, who wrote a critical response to Dr. Flegal’s 2013 article, came to similar conclusions. The Spanish researchers criticized Flegal’s studies because they were based on BMI. However, unlike Dr. Willett, they accept the validity of the “obesity paradox”.

Notably, the Ahima and Lazar article includes a figure that shows metabolically healthy people with  normal and obese BMIs, and contrasts them with metabolically unhealthy people with normal and obese BMIs. The main difference between metabolically healthy versus unhealthy people (whatever their BMI) is muscle mass and fitness. The unhealthy subjects exhibit muscle loss, or sarcopenia, and reduced fitness.

The authors note that skeletal muscle accounts for the majority of glucose disposal. Thus loss of muscle mass, or sarcopenia, due to aging and/or physical inactivity, can result in reduced insulin sensitivity, development of diabetes, and poor cardiovascular health. This applies people with poor metabolic health, whether they have apparently normal BMIs or are obese. Metabolically unhealthy individuals–whether of normal BMI or obese–also have excess visceral fat. Excess visceral fat is associated with the metabolic syndrome and development of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Drs. Ahima and Lazar call for better metrics than BMI, in order to assess a patient’s risk of metabolic disease. They cite the “body shape index”, which quantifies abdominal adiposity (and thus visceral adiposity) relative to BMI and height as potentially a better predictor of mortality than BMI. The body shape index is based on measuring waist circumference, and adjusting it for height and weight. They further call for the development of “accurate, practical, and affordable tools to assess  body composition, adipose hormones, myokines, cytokines, and other biomarkers” to use in assessing obesity and other metabolic disorders in order to determine the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and the risk of mortality.

Appreciating the role of muscle mass in health and disease

The analysis of Ahimsa and Lazar also suggests the hypothesis that loss of muscle mass–sarcopenia–due to aging and/or lack of exercise may be a key factor in the development of obesity-related diseases.

There are at least two other recent reports that focus on sarcopenic obesity. The first, a 2012 paper in Nutrition Reviews entitled “Sarcopenic obesity in the elderly and strategies for weight management” is authored by Zhaoping Li, M.D., Ph.D. and David Heber, M.D., Ph.D. of the Center for Human Nutrition, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles. The second paper, entitled “Sarcopenic obesity: strategies for management”, by Melissa J. Benton, PhD, MSN and her colleagues (Valdosta State University College of Nursing, Valdosta, GA) was published in 2011 in the American Journal of Nursing. The first of these reports is a scientific review article, while the second is a practically-oriented report for nurses (carrying continuing education credits); the lead author is a nurse with advanced training in education, sports medicine, and gerontology.

The Li and Heber paper covers much of the same ground as the Ahimsa and Lazar Science Perspective, with respect to the inadequacy of BMI as a metric for obesity, and the need to have better measures of body composition (especially with respect to fat versus skeletal muscle). However, it goes beyond this concern for metrics, by focusing on “sarcopenic obesity”, its relationship with a sedentary lifestyle and with aging, and how sarcopenic obesity might be treated.

Loss of muscle mass as a function of aging in sedentary individuals results in age-associated decreases in resting metabolic rate and muscle strength, and is also a major factor in decreases in activity levels.  These factors result in the decreased energy requirement in aging individuals. If (as is usual) calorie intake does not decrease to match the decreased energy requirements, obesity (i.e., accumulation of excess body fat) results. Sarcopenic obesity in aging individuals is associated not only with type 2 diabetes and other metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, but also with loss of independence and increased risk of mortality. It is a major public health challenge in the over-65 population.

Li and Heber discuss various means to measure body composition, and thus to diagnose sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. They then go on to discuss ways to treat this condition, via emphasizing resistance training and increased intake of protein, in order to increase muscle mass and the resting metabolic rate. The authors cite resistance training as “the most effective intervention for reversing sarcopenia in the elderly”. Based on evidence in the field, the authors also hypothesize that increased dietary protein (especially the use of protein supplements or meal replacements) is also important in building muscle mass and as a result reducing fat mass.

It is known that increased dietary protein results in maintenance of muscle mass during calorie-restricted diets, as compared to diets with “normal” or inadequate intakes of protein. However, the authors see the need for more research to determine whether a high-protein diet (up to 35% of caloric intake) will be beneficial in improving muscle anabolic responses to resistance exercise in older adults.

The Benton et al. paper also emphasizes the role of resistance training and a high-protein diet in treatment of sarcopenic obesity. However, being a practically-oriented nursing article, it gives specific recommendations for exercise, as well as sources of high-quality protein in the diet. (This article focuses on high-protein foods, not protein supplements.)

This article also states that nurses should be knowledgeable about sarcopenic obesity and its management. They should also educate older patients on utilizing resistance training and dietary protein to prevent or reverse sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. This education should also apply to educating now-healthy aging adults on the need to prevent these conditions, since prevention is easier than reversing sarcopenic obesity once it has developed.

It would seem that not only nurses, but also primary care physicians and other doctors need to be aware of these issues as well.

The Benton et al. paper also wisely counsels that patients contemplating diet and exercise programs such as recommended in their article should first consult with their primary care physician. We agree with this recommendation. We also once again emphasize that this blog does not exist to give diet or exercise advice, or to receive comments or guest posts that purport to give such advice.

However, you are welcome to use this article, or better yet the publications we have cited herein, to help your primarily care provider to be aware of issues involving sarcopenic obesity. Some medical facilities also include physical therapists and/or access to gyms with trainers who can help patients with exercise programs, once one’s primary care physician has been consulted.


1. Currently marketed drugs for obesity–and for such conditions as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and other metabolic diseases that are usually found in obese individuals and metabolically unhealthy individuals with normal BMI–are generally prescribed as adjuncts to diet and exercise. “Diet and exercise” generally means the types of hypocaloric diets and aerobic exercise conventionally prescribed for weight loss. Researchers and physicians may need to take sarcopenic obesity into account when prescribing these drugs for patients with this condition, and in designing and conducting clinical trials. Diet and especially exercise recommendations may be different for patients with sarcopenic obesity than the current recommendations.

2. We have discussed “alternative” (i.e., non-CNS  or gut targeting) antiobesity therapies now in development in several articles on this blog. Unlike CNS-targeting drugs [e.g., lorcaserin (Arena’s Belviq) and phentermine/topiramate (Vivus’ Qsymia)], which are aimed at curbing appetite, these novel therapeutics are designed to increase energy expenditure or to inhibit the biosynthesis of fat. These drugs, if and when they are approved, will be indicated for patients with extreme obesity, such as those who may currently be candidates for bariatric surgery.

Similarly, we have discussed Novartis’ bimagrumab, an anti-muscle wasting drug now entering Phase 3 clinical trials in patients with the rare muscle wasting disease sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM). Bimagrumab is also in Phase 2 clinical trials in sarcopenic older adults with mobility limitations. If and when this drug is approved, it will be at least initially indicated for patients with sIBM, and perhaps eventually for older adults with severe sarcopenia (with or without obesity) that has resulted in mobility limitations.

It will be an extremely long time–if ever–before such drugs are approved for the broader obese and obese-sarcopenic population (or those at risk for these conditions). The diet and resistance exercise approaches discussed in this article may be appropriate for many in this broader group of individuals, and are free of drug-related adverse effects. They may also prevent the development of extreme obesity and its complications, as well as loss of independence due to sarcopenia or obese sarcopenia.

3. We have also discussed the development of anti-aging therapies in various articles in this blog. This field has generated a lot of interest in the news lately, because of Google’s launch of the anti-aging company Calico. As we discussed, for example, in our August 15, 2013 aging article, no pharmaceutical company can run a clinical trial with longevity as an endpoint. Companies must test their drugs against a particular aging-related disease. Many such companies test their agents (e.g., drugs that target sirtuins) against type 2 diabetes.

Why develop an “anti-aging” drug for type 2 diabetes rather than a specific antidiabetic drug? The hope is that an “anti-aging” drug approved for treatment of, for example, type 2 diabetes, will have pleiotropic effects on multiple diseases of aging, and will ultimately be found to increase lifespan or “healthspan” (the length of a person’s life in which he/she is generally healthy and not debilitated by chronic diseases).

Given the major role of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in aging-related disability and mortality, those involved in research and development of anti-aging therapeutics need to take preservation and restoration of muscle mass into account, as they study and/or target pathways involved in aging and longevity.


As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company,  please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.