Breakthroughs of the Year
As it does every year, Science published its “Breakthrough of the Year” for 2010 in the 17 December issue of the journal.
For its “Breakthrough of the Year”, Science chose a non-life science innovation, the first quantum machine. Interestingly, the same issue of Science included a Perspective on biophysicist Britton Chance, who died last November at the age of 97. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Chance discovered that biological electron transfer operates via quantum tunneling, a mechanism central to photosynthesis, respiration, and many oxidoreductase enzymes. Mitochondria, chloroplasts, and oxidoreductase enzymes thus constitute biological quantum machines of a sort.
Interestingly, Dr. Chance continued to work on metabolism all of his long working life, including in the era of molecular biology when interest in that field waned. By doing so, he made many important contributions, including the mechanism for the generation of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) superoxide and peroxide during normal mitochondrial respiration, and the use of near-infrared (NIR) light for noninvasive diagnostics.
Although Science chose a non-life science advancement as its “Breakthrough of the Year”, the journal’s runners-up for “Breakthrough of the Year” were replete with life science items. The first runner-up was the synthetic Mycoplasma mycoides genome constructed by the J. Craig Venter Institute, which they used to create “the first synthetic cell”. As we discussed in a series of two articles on this blog (see here and here, although the creation of the synthetic genome and the “synthetic cell” represented a technical tour de force, it did not represent a true breakthrough. Many leading scientists, including leaders in the field of synthetic biology, agreed with us. However, at least several bioethicists and philosophers hailed this work as a milestone, calling it “the end of vitalism”. (As we noted in another blog post, however, not all bioethicists agree.)
Moreover, policy-makers were sufficiently alarmed by the “synthetic cell” that (as noted in the Science “Breakthrough of the Year” runners-up article) the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues held hearings on policy implications of this research. Nevertheless, the report of this commission (issued in December 2010) concluded that the Venter research “does not amount to creating life as either a scientific or a moral matter” and that synthetic biology remains “in the early stages,” with any dangers well into the future. The commission recommended continuing White House oversight, but a relatively mild set of regulatory measures.
As we said in our second article on the “synthetic cell”, we are much more impressed by the metabolic engineering studies of Jay Keasling, and by George Church’s automated method for optimizing metabolic engineering pathways, which we had discussed in an earlier blog post. The Science “Breakthrough of the Year” runners-up article mentioned Dr. Church’s automated system, among other synthetic biology advances made in 2009 and 2010.
Meanwhile, in a review of metabolic engineering published in the 3 December 2010 issue of Science, Dr. Keasling says that although minimal bacterial hosts such as Dr. Venter’s “synthetic” mycoplasma may be of scientific interest, they are not suitable to use in metabolic engineering studies whose goal is scale-up for industrial production of medicines, chemicals, or biofuels. This agrees with our statement that such applications require “workhorse” organisms that can take the extensive genetic manipulation needed to engineer new metabolic pathways, and which are capable of scale-up.
We therefore believe that the “synthetic cell” is not the life science breakthrough of the year, despite its placement at the top of Science‘s “Breakthrough of the Year” runners-up article.
Our nominee for the life science breakthrough of the year is listed right under the “synthetic cell” in the Science “Breakthrough of the Year” runners-up article. It is the determination of the sequence of approximately two-thirds of the Neanderthal genome by Svante Pääbo (Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.) and his colleagues. This achievement is something that only a few years ago seemed completely impossible. Moreover, this work is of great cultural significance, since it indicates that Neanderthals contributed some 1-4 percent of the genome sequences of non-African present-day humans. More recently, Dr. Pääbo and his colleagues followed up the Neanderthal studies by using their DNA synthesis methods to identify a third species of humans, known as Denisovans. Denisovans, who were more closely related to Neanderthals than to modern humans, were alive at the same time as modern humans emerged from Africa and also encountered the Neanderthals. Dr. Pääbo’s new studies indicate that the Denisovans contributed some 4–6% of the genome sequences of present-day Melanesians.
Despite the importance of the Pääbo Neanderthal studies, we have not blogged on this work simply because it has nothing to do with drug discovery and development. However, perhaps someday, for example, some of the products of genes that are found in present-day humans but not in Neanderthals could emerge as potential drug targets. As discussed in the Science “Breakthrough of the Year” runners-up article, researchers have begun studying some of these gene products in cell culture systems.
Moreover, the types of advanced, next-generation DNA sequencing methods used by Dr. Pääbo and his colleagues are being applied to studies that are relevant to drug discovery. These include the 1000 Genomes Project, which seeks to find all single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) present in at least 1% of humans. This and other next-generation genomics projects were listed in the Science “Breakthrough of the Year” runners-up article, as the third runner-up. The 1000 Genomes Project, as well as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that use high-throughput DNA sequencing methods, may enable researchers to identify rare mutations that are involved in complex human diseases. This might in turn lead to the discovery of novel drugs and diagnostics.
Among other life science items in the Science “Breakthrough of the Year” runners-up article was the production of knockout rats. We discussed knockout rats in an October 1, 2010 blog post.
Newsmaker of the Year
Nature also had an end-of-2010 special article, “The Newsmaker of the Year”, in its 23/30 December issue. Unfortunately, Nature chose a U.S. government official as its Newsmaker of the Year.
We would prefer that Nature stick to what it does so very well, and stay out of U.S. politics, whether in its “opinionated editorials” [sic] or elsewhere. Perhaps the low point in Nature‘s political forays was its November 2010 editorial calling for what amounts to a new version of Prohibition. This is despite the ample evidence that moderate consumption of red wine (for example) is healthy for most adults. Readers would be well advised not to believe everything they read in Nature editorials.
Our nominee for Newsmaker of the Year in the life sciences is Dr. Svante Pääbo, for the reasons we discussed earlier.
Deals of the Year
Also as an end-of-year feature, the IN VIVO blog has been running a Deal of the Year competition. The nominees are grouped in three categories: M&A Deal of the Year, Alliance Deal of the Year, and Exit/Financing Deal of the Year.
Only one of the nominees had been featured in an article on our blog: the Celgene/Agios alliance (April 23, 2010).
The IN VIVO Blog invited readers to vote on the Deal of the Year in each of the three categories, by going to http://www.windhover.com/ezine/html/doty10.html. The voting closed at 12:00pm on 6 January 2011 (Eastern Standard Time).
The winners of the vote were:
- M&A Deal of the Year: Celgene/Abraxis (50.31% of 1,799 votes)
- Alliance Deal of the Year: Celgene/Agios (55.32% of 3,176 votes)
- Exit/Financing Deal of the Year: Ablexis (46.54% of 1,631 votes)
Congratulations to all the winners, especially Agios and Celgene, which were featured in our blog post.
Happy New Year!
This is our own version of an end-of-year special article, and will be our last blog post of 2010. Best wishes to all of you for a happy, productive, and innovative New Year in 2011.
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 click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.