Source: Narayanese. http://bit.ly/oi10H1

On July 29, 2011, Merck announced that It was shutting down the San Francisco research laboratory that it had acquired as part of its $1.1 billion acquisition of therapeutic RNAi specialist company Sirna Therapeutics. This announcement was covered in a July 29, 2011 article in Xconomy, and in a news brief in the 4 August issue of Nature and a linked Nature news blog article.

According to the Xconomy article, the shutdown will include the loss of around 50 jobs. Around ten people are being offered transfers to other Merck facilities in nearby Palo Alto CA and on the East Coast.

The Merck facility shutdown continues the exit or retrenchment from therapeutic RNAi research at other Big Pharma companies. The Biopharmconsortium Blog has covered these moves at Roche and Pfizer.

As we discussed in the Roche article, Novartis had also decided to end its 5-year partnership with therapeutic RNAi specialty company Alnylam In September 2010. However, Novartis acquired technology and exclusive development rights for RNAi therapeutics against 31 targets for in-house use as the result of its partnership with Alnylam.  Alnylam is entitled to receive milestone payments for any RNAi therapeutic products that Novartis develops based on these targets. Thus Novartis is still involved in RNAi therapeutics, despite the termination of the Alnylam partnership.

Moreover, according to the Nature news blog, Ian McConnell of Merck’s Scientific Affairs, R&D and Licensing and Partnerships said that Merck will continue to have over 100 scientists working on RNA-based therapeutics, and that it continues to invest significantly in the field. Closing the San Francisco lab represents an effort to trim the budget by eliminating the cost of maintaining a separate RNAi facility.

In our previous blog articles on Big Pharma RNAi therapeutics retrenchment, and in our October 2010 book -length report, RNAi Therapeutics: Second-Generation Candidates Build Momentum, we discussed the strategic issues that are involved in undertaking (or in retrenching from) R&D programs in RNAi therapeutics, and in investing in that area. The therapeutic RNAi (and microRNA) field represents an early-stage area of science and technology. The field may be technologically premature, as was the monoclonal antibody (MAb) drug field in the 1980s.

Big Pharma originally got into RNAi therapeutics in order to help fill weak pipelines, and with the hope of staking out a commanding position in the RNAi field once it became successful. However, with the short-term pressure at Big Pharma companies to cut expenses and programs, Big Pharmas have been losing the needed patience to continue with a technologically premature field like RNAi therapeutics.

In the June 2011 issue of Molecular Therapy, there is an editorial by Arthur Krieg, M.D. (former Chief Scientific Officer of the now-closed Pfizer Oligonucleotide Therapeutics Unit, and now Entrepreneur in Residence at Atlas Venture, Cambridge, MA), entitled “Is RNAi dead?” As discussed in the editorial, the move of Big Pharma away from RNAi, according to some observers, signals the death of the therapeutic RNAi platform. Dr. Krieg outlines an alternative view.

According to Dr. Krieg, Big Pharmas got into RNAi therapeutics with the hope of enabling the rapid development of targeted drugs without the long time lags and uncertainties of small molecule drugs and biologics. In theory, if a research team has a good target, it could rationally design a lead RNAi drug specific for the target and ready for human clinical trials within 15 months. And researchers would not have to worry about “undruggability” of targets. However, there have been several unforeseen hurdles to the development of RNAi drugs, the most formidable of which is the issue of drug delivery. Although certain high-profile publications suggested that the challenge of RNAi drug delivery could be easily overcome, this proved not to be the case in practice.

However, Dr. Krieg believes that the progress in RNAi delivery in recent years has been “nothing short of spectacular”. In 2008, the best RNAi delivery systems for a liver target might have an IC50 (i.e., the RNAi dose required for 50% inhibition of target expression) of 1–3 mg/kg, but in 2010/2011, the IC50 has been reduced to about 1% of this value, which is an improvement of two logs. Dr. Krieg also says that there have also been significant advances in reducing off-target and other undesired systemic effects of RNAi therapeutics in animal models in recent years.

Nevertheless, the advances in RNAi delivery and safety are moving too slowly for Big Pharma’s current short-term mindset. According to Dr. Krieg, if companies are not able to take an RNAi drug into clinical development this year, then the next time there is an R&D portfolio review, investments in “high-risk” technology platforms such as RNAi are likely to be cut. As we have discussed in this blog, and as is well-known to most of you, every Big Pharma company has been cutting R&D and shedding poorly productive and high-risk programs. The focus at many Big Pharmas is on fast, sure returns. High-risk or premature technologies that have not yet yielded any marketed drugs, such as RNAi (and for example, stem cells/regenerative medicine) is not likely to offer such returns.

Dr. Krieg also notes that in the case of another once-premature technology, monoclonal antibody (MAb) drugs, it took several waves of technology development to advance from repeated clinical failure to one of the most successful classes of drugs today. In our view, MAb technology is the classic case (in the life sciences, anyway) of how researchers and companies can take such a premature technology up the technology curve by developing enabling technologies. We discussed this case in our September 28, 2009 blog article, and its applicability to RNAi and stem cells in our July 13, 2009 blog article. As discussed in these articles, and as noted by Dr. Krieg, it was not Big Pharmas, but biotech companies “on the cutting edge” (together with academic labs) that advanced the therapeutic MAb field. Big Pharmas later bought into the MAb field, typically by large acquisitions. This is especially exemplified by the acquisition of MAb drug leader Genentech by Roche.

With respect to RNAi, as mentioned above, at least Merck and Novartis among the Big Pharmas are continuing with in-house RNAi therapeutics programs. And such biotechs as Alnylam, Silence Therapeutics, Quark Phamaceuticals, Dicerna, and Santaris have RNAi and/or microRNA-based drug candidates in clinical trials, often partnered with Big Pharma companies (such as Pfizer) that have cut or reduced their own RNAi drug programs. Therefore, there are companies that are working on advancing RNAi therapeutics up the technology curve. As Dr. Krieg says in his editorial, success in such programs will be expected to lead to Big Pharma reinvestment in RNAi/microRNA therapeutics, just as in the case of MAb drugs.

I was quoted in an article entitled “Bristol-Myers Squibb swallows last of antibody pioneers”, by Malorye Allison, in the September 2009 issue of Nature Biotechnology. The article focused on the monoclonal antibody sector, especially on the acquisition of Medarex by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). The acquisition was completed on September 1. To read the article, go to http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n9/full/nbt0909-781.html (subscription required).

In January, I gave a presentation to an RNAi conference, drawing lessons for the current therapeutic RNAi field from the evolution of the monoclonal antibody (MAb) field. This was discussed in a previous blog post, which focused on technological prematurity. In this blog post, we discuss the evolution of the MAb sector, how industry leaders emerged, and the acquisition of these leaders by large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

MAbs are now the fastest-growing and most successful class of biologics. The majority of the MAbs on the market are indicated for oncology and inflammatory diseases. In 2005, MAbs accounted for 75% of antitumor biologics sales ($7.3B). Fueled by expanded indications and new products, MAbs are the major growth engine of the biologics sector, now and into the foreseeable future. Moreover, as we discussed in another previous blog post, leading biologics (all of which are MAbs) are on track to be the biggest-selling drugs in 2014. Large pharmaceutical companies thus have been seeking to acquire this highly successful class of drugs (including both marketed and pipeline MAbs), in order to fill their depleted pipelines and to make up for lost revenues due to current and impending patent expiries.

However, the MAb field was not always successful. Therapeutic MAbs went through nearly 20 years of scientific/technological prematurity.

The period of technological prematurity of MAbs lasted roughly from 1975 to 1994. Georges Köhler and César Milstein published the first paper on MAb technology in 1975, and they received a Nobel Prize for their work in 1984. The first MAb drug, Johnson & Johnson’s Orthoclone OKT3 was approved in 1986 for use in transplant rejection. However, this drug can only be used once in a patient due to its immunogenicity. There were not any further approvals of MAb drugs until 1994. The “deluge” of MAb drug approvals began in 1997, and has accelerated ever since. Prior to 1994, MAb technology represented great science, and it enabled researchers to make great strides in immunology, cancer research, the biology of HIV/AIDS, and other fields. (Some of this research was eventually applied to drug discovery, including the discovery of MAb drugs.) But during this period of scientific prematurity, any MAb drugs seemed to be in the distant future.

However, beginning in the early 1980s, several companies and academic labs began to develop enabling technologies designed to move this premature technology up the development curve. Among these companies were those that became the leaders In the MAb field.

The original MAbs were made via fusion of mouse B cells with murine myeloma cells, to create hybridomas. The MAbs secreted by these hybridomas contain all mouse sequences. They are highly immunogenic in humans, and are usually rapidly cleared from the circulation. They may also trigger allergic reactions and in some cases anaphylaxis. In order to create less immunogenic MAbs with the potential for efficacy and safety in humans, researchers used recombinant DNA technology to construct MAbs with mainly human sequences, but with the specific antigen-binding site of a mouse MAb.

The progression of MAb technology resulted in the following classes of products:

• Chimeric MAbs: mouse variable region and human constant region
• Humanized MAbs: mouse hypervariable regions and human framework regions and constant regions
• Fully human MAbs: human sequences only

Development of fully human MAbs required the invention of special technologies (phage display or the humanized mouse) that do not rely on mouse hybridoma technology.

Among leading fully human MAb companies, Cambridge Antibody Technology utilized phage-display technology, and Abgenix and Medarex used humanized mouse technology. The great majority of marketed MAb cancer drugs are chimeric or humanized MAbs. The first fully human MAb cancer drug was approved by the FDA in 2006.

The development of MAb enabling technologies began in the early 1980s (early within the period of technological immaturity of MAb drugs). For example, Genentech’s broad Cabilly patents (issued in 1989 and 2001) resulted from the company’s collaboration with academic researchers beginning in the early 1980s. But Genentech’s first MAb products, the antitumor agents Rituxan (codeveloped with Idec) and Herceptin, did not reach the market until 1997 and 1998, respectively. Both are highly successful drugs.

The MAb sector has been characterized by a high degree of litigation over enabling technology patents (e.g., Genentech’s Cabilly patents vs. UCB Celltech’s Boss patent), and a great degree of cross-licensing of enabling technology patents, in part to settle or prevent lawsuits. From this history of technology development, patent disputes and cross-licensing, several MAb sector leaders emerged.

Over the course of the last several years, all of the public biotechnology companies that pioneered therapeutic MAb technology and become leaders in the field have been acquired. The acquisition of Medarex by BMS brings this process to a conclusion.


Are there any MAb companies that have yet to be acquired? The Nature Biotechnology article mentions several companies developing antibody conjugates, antibody fragments or antibody mimetics. However, there are also other still-independent firms that have developed proprietary technologies to produce full-length humanized or fully human MAbs. Among these are Facet Biotech (humanized MAbs), and Xoma, MorphoSys, BioInvent, and Dyax (all of which developed fully human MAb platforms based on phage display technology). Of these companies, Dyax is currently focusing on development of its proprietary non-antibody lead product, but also has a pipeline of proprietary research-stage MAbs and partnered research-stage and Phase I MAbs. The other companies are focusing solely on MAbs, and have pipelines of proprietary and partnered MAb drug candidates.

Of these companies, MorphoSys appears to have the strongest technology platform, and has used this platform to craft a unique business model that enables the company to be profitable even though it has not yet marketed a drug. Facet Biotech was spun out of PDL BioPharma last year. PDL, formerly known as Protein Design Labs, is a pioneer in humanized antibody technology, whose technology was used in the development of Genentech’s Herceptin and Avastin. In August 2009, Biogen Idec made an unsolicited offer to acquire Facet, which Facet rejected; the attempt of Biogen Idec to acquire Facet is still ongoing. Biogen Idec has been Facet’s partner since 2005, and the two companies have been codeveloping daclizumab, an anti-IL-2 receptor agent for treatment of multiple sclerosis (currently in Phase II clinical development), and volociximab, an anti-angiogenesis agent for treatment of solid tumors (also currently in Phase II). Except for Facet, none of these companies appears to be a near-term acquisition candidate.

Nevertheless, large pharmaceutical companies are continuing to work on building franchises in biologics, with an emphasis on MAb drugs. This is, for example, a factor in the Merck-Schering Plough and Pfizer-Wyeth mergers. Schering-Plough has had MAb alliances with such companies as MorphoSys and Xoma, and acquired Dutch company Organon (which had a collaboration in MAbs with Dyax) in 2007 in part because of its capabilities in biologics. Merck also acquired GlycoFi in 2006, for its capabilities in yeast-synthesized MAbs and other biologics. The newly merged Merck plans to make biologics a major focus of the company. Similarly, Pfizer acquired Wyeth in part because of its strength in biologics.

Thus, the acquisitions of the leaders in MAb technology represent an important part of a larger picture, the growing emphasis on biologics in large pharmaceutical companies, which have traditionally relied on small-molecule drugs.

RNAi, embryonic stem cells, and technological prematurity

During the Bush administration, the US scientific community, numerous biotech companies, “disease organizations”, many politicians, and families affected by diseases such as juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and neurodegenerative diseases, deplored the administration’s restrictions on use of Federal funds for human embryonic stem (hES) cell research. Many predicted that countries with fewer restrictions, such as the UK, would far outdistance the United States in stem cell research, and in its applications to regenerative medicine.

In March of this year, the new Obama administrations lifted many restrictions on hES cell research. However, it is clear that the US did not significantly fall behind countries that did not have the Bush-era restrictions in place during the past eight years. Why not? It is because hES cell research constitutes a scientifically premature technology.

A field of biomedical science is said to be scientifically or technologically premature when despite the great science and exciting potential of the field, any practicable therapeutic applications are in the distant future, due to difficult hurdles in applying the technology. Thus researchers in countries not hampered by the former US restrictions were unable to capitalize on their “head start” as was feared.

On January 22, I gave a presentation at the Center for Business Intelligence (CBI) conference “Executing on the Promise of RNAi” in Cambridge MA. My presentation, “The Therapeutic RNAi Market – Lessons from the Evolution of the Biologics Market”, compared the field of monoclonal antibody (MAb) drugs to that of RNAi drugs. Despite the high level of investment in therapeutic RNAi, the formation of numerous biotech companies specializing in RNAi drug development, and the strong interest of Big Pharma in the field, there is still not one therapeutic RNAi product on the market. Researchers also see significant hurdles to the development of RNAi drugs, especially those involving systemic drug delivery. As a result, many experts believe that therapeutic RNAi is scientifically premature.

MAbs currently represent the most successful class of biologics. However, the therapeutic MAb field went through a long period of scientific prematurity, from 1975 through the mid-1990s. Several enabling technologies, developed from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, were necessary for the explosion of successful MAb drugs, from the mid-1990s to today. Similarly, many companies and academic laboratories are hard at work developing enabling technologies to catalyze the development of the therapeutic RNAi field. Among researchers active in developing these enabling technologies were several speakers at the CBI conference, from such companies as Alnylam, RXi, Dicerna, Calando, miRagen, Santaris, and Quark.

With respect to hES cells, researchers (including American researchers) have been hard at work on developing enabling technologies to move that field up the technology development curve. Notably, within the last three years, researchers in Japan, the US, Canada, and other countries have developed the new field of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. This field is based on a set of technologies in which adult cells are reprogrammed, via insertion of four (or fewer) specific genes, into pluripotent cells that resemble embryonic stem cells. This approach not only gets around many of the ethical objections to the use of embryo-derived hES cells, but also potentially puts stem cells into the hands of many more researchers, who do not have ready access to human embryos. Moreover, iPS technology has the potential to enable researchers to construct patient-matched stem cells for cellular therapies, thus eliminating the prospect of immune rejection of transferred cells.

The iPS cell field was reviewed in a News Feature in the 23 April 2009 issue of Nature. As discussed in this review, researchers have been concentrating on developing the technology, for example reprogramming cells by using non-integrating or excisable vectors, or even with no inserted genes at all (e.g., combinations of small-molecule drugs and proteins). One researcher, Rudolf Jaenisch of MIT and the Whitehead Institute, said in the article that research in the iPS field has so far been all about technology. At some point in the near future, Jaenisch believes that the field will shift to considering scientific questions such as mechanisms of reprogramming and of cellular differentiation and dedifferentiation.

A few potential hES cell-based therapies are making their way to the clinic. In January, Geron announced that the FDA had cleared the company’s Investigational New Drug application (IND) for human clinical trials of an hES cell-based therapy for spinal cord repair. Pfizer, in collaboration with researchers at University College, London, is working to develop a hES cell-based therapy for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness. This will involve treatment of patients with retinal pigment epithelial cells derived from hES cells. The researchers anticipate beginning clinical trials within two years. Especially in the case of the hES-based spinal cord therapy, many researchers see major pitfalls, which may result in clinical failure. This situation is typical for initial applications of an early-stage or premature technology.

Early-stage or premature technologies often still have great value in the research laboratory, including enabling research breakthroughs that can lead to new therapies. For example, MAb technology, even in its earliest days, enabled researchers to discover receptors that are key to the activity of cells of the immune system and of tumor cells. This resulted in enormous breakthroughs in immunology and in cancer biology, with eventual applications to the development of successful anti-inflammatory, anti-HIV/AIDS, and anti-tumor drugs. RNAi technology has become a mainstay of target validation and pathway studies in drug discovery. Similarly, researchers expect that hES cell technology—and especially iPS cell technology—will provide breakthrough tools for drug discovery researchers. This may well happen far in advance of the development of hES/iPS-based cellular therapies.