The April 1, 2010 issue of The Scientist has an article, entitled “Building a better mouse”, on efforts of researchers to develop improved mouse models of cancer.

Current mouse models of cancer, mainly xenograft models in which human cancer cell lines are transplanted into immune deficient mice, are notoriously unpredictive of efficacy when oncology drug candidates are tested in them. This is a major factor in the high failure rate of oncology drugs in clinical trials. It is estimated that oncology drugs that enter human clinical trials have a 95 percent attrition rate, as compared to the 89 percent attrition rate for all clinical candidates. (Poorly predictive animal models are a major factor in the failure of clinical candidates in all therapeutic areas, but cancer models are particularly unpredictive.)

The Scientist article focuses on the ongoing “co-clinical mouse/human trials” now being led by Pier Paolo Pandolfi, MD, PhD (Director, Cancer and Genetics Program, Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center Cancer Center and the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center). Dr. Pandolfi and his colleagues have constructed genetically engineered transgenic mouse strains that have genetic changes that mimic those found in human cancers. These mouse models spontaneous develop cancers that resemble the corresponding human cancers. In the co-clinical mouse/human trials, researchers simultaneous treat a genetically engineered mouse model and patients with tumors that exhibit the same set of genetic changes with the same experimental targeted drugs. The goal is to determine to what extent the mouse models are predictive of patient response to therapeutic agents, and of tumor progression and survival. The studies may thus result in validated mouse models that are more predictive of drug efficacy than the currently standard xenograft models.

The human clinical trials being “shadowed” by simultaneous studies in mice include Phase III trials of several targeted therapies for lung and prostate cancer. Xenograft models in which tumor tissue from the patients have been transplanted into immunosuppressed mice are being tested in parallel with the genetically engineered mouse models. This two-year project represents the most rigorous test to date of how well genetically engineered mouse models of cancer can predict clinical outcomes.

Dr. Pandolfi started in the mouse cancer model field with his studies of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Unlike humans, mice do not naturally develop APL. Chromosomal translocations, in which the gene for the retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARα) (located on chromosome 17) becomes fused to one of several partner genes (known as “X genes”) on different chromosomes, are involved in the causation of APL. In over 98% of cases of APL, RARα is fused to the promyelocytic leukemia (PML) gene, located on chromosome 15. In a relatively small percentage of cases, RARα is fused to other X genes. An example of one of these other genes is the promyelocytic leukemia zinc finger (PLZF) gene, located on chromosome 11.

In studies in the late 1990s, Dr. Pandolfi and his colleagues constructed transgenic mice that expressed either PML-RARα or PLZF-RARα transgenes, in a promyelocytic-specific manner. (Expression of these transgenes in every cell of a mouse embryo results in embryonic lethality, and their expression in all early hematopoietic progenitors results in impaired myelopoiesis but no leukemia; these transgenic mice are thus not informative with respect to APL. The researchers were able to model PML only by expressing the transgenes specifically and exclusively in promyelocytes.)

The promyelocytic-specific PML-RARα-transgenic mice exhibit abnormal hematopoiesis over their first year of life, and between 12-14 months of age 10% of them develop APL.The promyelocytic-specific PLZF-RARα transgenic mice also exhibit a long latency period, and a subset of these mice eventually develops a leukemia that has features of human chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

Importantly, the above transgenic mouse models were useful in designing therapies for human patients. The leukemias in both the PML-RARα-transgenic mice and in patients with the PML-RARα translocation were responsive to treatment with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) (Genentech’s Vesanoid, generics). However, both the PLZF-RARα transgenic mice and patients with APL bearing the PLZF-RARα translocation were not responsive to ATRA. APL patients who initially responded to ATRA developed resistance to the drug, as did the PML-RARα transgenic mice. Using the PML-RARα transgenic mice, the researchers found that a combination of ATRA with arsenic trioxide (As₂O₃) (Cephalon’s Trisenox) cured the mice of leukemia. This later proved to also be true for human patients with APL bearing the PML-RARα translocation. Thus a cancer that once was uniformly fatal now has an approximately 90% survival rate.

Leukemic mice with the PLZF-RARα transgene were not responsive to As₂O₃. However, later studies have indicated that histone deacetylase inhibitors such as phenylbutyrate, in combination with ATRA, may be effective in treating these transgenic mice. These drug combinations may therefore be effective in APL patients with the PLZF-RARα translocation.

The success of Dr. Pandolfi’s genetically engineered mouse model in designing an effective therapy for the major type of APL illustrates the potential power of improved mouse models for cancer. Of course, this is a special case, since researchers were able to use the model to design an effective therapy using already-approved drugs. In most cases, researchers use the models to develop novel therapeutic strategies for a particular cancer, which involves discovery and development of new drugs or design of clinical trials using experimental drugs that have yet to be approved. The “co-clinical mouse/human trials” being run by Dr. Pandolfi and his colleagues may result in additional validation of the power of genetically engineered mouse models of cancer, and may thus encourage their adoption by companies developing new oncology drugs.

Our recently published book-length report, Animal Models for Therapeutic Strategies, includes a case study on a genetically engineered model of pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal of cancers. Although models bearing transplanted human pancreatic tumors (i.e., xenograft models) are sensitive to numerous chemotherapeutic agents, human pancreatic cancers are insensitive to the same agents. Using a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic cancer, researchers hypothesized that the reason for the insensitivity of human pancreatic cancer (and of tumors in the mouse model) is impaired drug delivery. Researchers have been using the mouse model to develop novel therapeutic strategies to enhance drug delivery and thus to achieve improved treatment of this disease.

Our 2009 book-length report, Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition, includes a case study on adoption of genetically engineered cancer models by industry. Most animal models designed to enable researchers to develop novel therapeutic strategies for complex human diseases are developed by academic researchers. This includes genetically engineered cancer mouse models. However, most drugs are developed by industry, not academia. Industrial researchers are hampered in their ability to develop successful new oncology drugs by the poorly predictive xenograft models. Genetically engineered mouse models of cancer may help biotechnology and pharmaceutical company researchers to be more productive in oncology drug development, provided the corporate researchers can adopt these animal models for use in their discovery research and preclinical studies. However, for several reasons, industry has not widely adopted these models.

Our report discusses the barriers to adoption of these models, large pharmaceutical companies that are beginning to adopt the models, and the biotechnology company Aveo Pharmaceuticals, whose technology platform is based on in-licensing genetically engineered mouse cancer models from its principals’ academic laboratories and developing new models in-house. Aveo uses its models in its own internal drug discovery and development, and also collaborates with several large pharmaceutical companies. Aveo thus serves as a means of technology transfer from academia to industry, including both to its own internal programs and to its partners. The article in The Scientist also discusses Aveo’s research on genetically engineered mouse cancer models, and their use in the company’s internal drug development programs.

During the week of February 22, 2010, the New York Times (NYT) ran a three-part series on a Phase I trial in 2008/2009 of a targeted therapy for metastatic melanoma, a disease that is almost always fatal within a year. The trial was led by Keith T. Flaherty, M.D. (then at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and now at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston). The drug was PLX4032, developed by Plexxikon, which is co-developing the compound with Roche. PLX4032 is a kinase inhibitor, which specifically targets the V600E mutant of the B-Raf oncoprotein. This is the most common somatic mutation found in human melanomas. Researchers believe that B-Raf(V600E) is a “driver mutation” that is particularly critical for the malignant phenotype of human metastatic melanomas that carry the mutation. PLX4032 entered Phase III clinical trials in 2009.

The NYT series, authored by Amy Harmon, focused on the stories of several patients, and on the dogged efforts of Dr. Flaherty to help his patients and to prove the value of targeted therapy. Although the targeted kinase inhibitor imatinib (Novartis’ Gleevec/Glivec) produces complete responses in the majority of treated patients in the chronic phase of CML (chronic myelogenous leukemia) and long-lasting remissions in many of these patients, many researchers believe that this is a special case, and they cite evidence that targeted therapy, especially in solid tumors, almost never produces durable responses. But Dr. Flaherty pressed on with his quest to prove the value of targeted therapy, despite this skepticism.

A key point in the story was when the original formulation of PLX4032, at the highest dose that patients could absorb, produced neither adverse effects nor clinical responses. Because of his belief in targeted therapy, and in this particular drug, Dr. Flaherty convinced Roche to reformulate the drug to enable patients to absorb a higher dose. With the higher doses of the drug made possible by the new formulation, the researchers saw dramatic clinical responses in the great majority of patients whose tumors contained B-Raf(V600E). Responses lasted an average of nearly 9 months, a dramatic breakthrough in treatment of metastatic melanoma.

As the series ended, Dr. Flaherty was working with his colleagues and the pharmaceutical industry to find ways to enable the testing of combination therapies of targeted drugs (including PLX4032) that might result in long-lasting remissions in patients with metastatic melanoma. Meanwhile, Plexxikon and Roche have taken PLX4032 into Phase II clinical trials and now into Phase III.

The NYT series is essentially a human-interest story. I commend it to all researchers, executives, and consultants in the industry whose work does not involve contact with patients, since creating products that can help patients is what our work is all about.

Dr. Flaherty reminds me, and others who have commented on this story, of Brian J. Druker, M.D. at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland. It was Dr. Druker’s efforts, centered on helping patients and proving the value of targeted therapy, that was the driving force behind the development of imatinib (Novartis’ Gleevec/Glivec). Without this effort (conducted in collaboration with biochemist Nicholas B. Lydon, then at Novartis), the whole field of kinase inhibitors for targeted therapy of cancer would not have emerged. Dr. Flaherty, as well as several other oncologists, is continuing this worthy tradition.

As pointed out to me by a leading Boston-area academic researcher in a cancer-related area, the NYT series did not give credit to the academic researchers who identified the role of B-Raf in cancer, and especially the role of B-Raf(V600E) in human melanoma. (For that matter, it did not credit the Plexxicon researchers who discovered PLX4032.) She said that the series sounded as if only one person, Dr. Flaherty, was responsible for the development of PLX4032. Moreover, the development of imatinib was made possible by decades of academic research on the target of the drug, Bcr-Abl, a fusion protein formed as the result of a chromosomal translocation. Drs. Druker and Lydon thus were not solely responsible for the development of imatinib either.

The academic researcher has a point. However, some industry commentators take a contrary point of view, downplaying the role of academic researchers in the drug discovery/development process and giving most of the credit to industry.

For years, we have taken the point of view that biology-driven drug discovery and development (arguably the most successful drug discovery/development strategy in the post-genomic era) requires the contributions of both academia and industry, and that more effective collaboration between academia and industry would result in more effective drug discovery and development. (See also my 2005 letter to the editor of BusinessWeek.)

It is basic research, usually in academic laboratories, that has resulted in the very best validated targets. Basic research on a particular target typically takes years or even decades (as in the case of Bcr-Abl). Many of the breakthrough drugs that have emerged in the past 10-15 years (as well as numerous promising pipeline drugs now in clinical testing) were made possible by this research. In contrast, large-scale “target validation” testing in industry more often than not results in targets whose role in normal physiology and in disease is poorly understood. This is an important cause of clinical attrition in drug development.

Nevertheless, it is industry, not academia, which uses this basic research to create drugs. In particular, it is industry that bears the enormous economic risk of drug development, especially of late-stage clinical trials.

Translational researchers, who are involved in taking the results of academic research and/or of discovery research in industry, and translating them into therapies that benefit patients, are—or should be—a key component of the drug discovery-development process. Drs. Druker and Flaherty are two outstanding examples.

However, at least some sectors of academia (and of governmental policy-makers and the media) are suspicious of the type of closer industry-academic collaboration that is needed to produce more effective translation of basic and drug-discovery research into the clinic. An editorial in the 25 February issue of Nature notes that there has been criticism of the recent hiring of William Chin, Lilly’s senior VP for discovery and clinical research, to be the executive dean for research at Harvard Medical School. The critics charge that strong research collaborations between academia and industry will inevitably result in conflicts of interest. The Nature editorial supports institutional policies that require disclosure of links between academic researchers and industry, but deplores the views of influential critics who believe that any collaboration between academic researchers and industry “corrupts” the academic research enterprise.

In addition to Nature, some leading academic researchers say that it is time for industry and the academic medical community to fight back against the critics, rather than appeasing them with ever more restrictive conflict-of-interest policies. These researchers note that the main purpose of medical research is not to publish scientific papers, but to translate this knowledge into therapies that benefit patients. This requires effective collaboration between academia and industry. We agree.

The big topic in pharmaceutical news lately has been layoffs, including layoffs due to major cuts in R&D. For example, the popular pharmaceutical industry blog “In the Pipeline” has had one story after another, in late 2009 and early 2010, about R&D cutbacks, including many comments from people affected by the reductions in staff. Such companies as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, and most recently Merck have been affected.

Layoffs, and cuts in R&D, were expected in companies that underwent big mergers in 2009, especially Pfizer/Wyeth and Merck/Schering-Plough. Much of the value of large-scale mergers to shareholders is realized by cost savings due to restructurings (especially elimination of redundancies between the two merging companies) and reductions in staff.

The more fundamental reason that motivates large pharmaceutical companies to enter into big mergers and/or to undertake restructurings that include reductions in R&D programs and in staff is the need to deal with the combination of major challenges facing the industry, which some experts have called a “perfect storm”. The most important of these challenges are low R&D productivity, increasing R&D costs, and expirations of patents of blockbuster drugs.

From the point of view of a financial analyst, the move to cut internal pharmaceutical R&D is a matter of “sheer economics”. Putting more and more money into R&D without any increase in numbers of high-valued new drugs, especially in the face of patent expiries, is a losing proposition. Why not then cut internal R&D, and concentrate on in-licensing pipeline drugs from biotech companies? In-licensed drugs, and drugs developed by smaller pharmaceutical and biotech companies, have shown a higher rate of success in development (measured in terms of percentage of drugs entering clinical trials that reach the market) than drugs developed internally by large pharmaceutical companies.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that we’ve been here before. Big Pharma went through a previous wave of large-scale mergers and restructurings in the late 1990s and early 2000s. These megamergers and restructurings enabled the surviving companies to realize significant cost savings from staff reductions, and in some cases enabled them to acquire blockbuster drugs (notably Pfizer’s acquisitions of Lipitor [atorvastatin] and Celebrex [celecoxib]). However, these gains were temporary, since the industry faced an even worse set of threats in the 2008-2010 period than it faced in 1997-2003. And the disruptions in R&D staffs and programs caused by these moves contributed to a reduction of the capacity of merged or restructured companies to carry out productive R&D.

Moreover, the move toward a strategy of depending more on in-licensing of pipeline drugs from smaller companies (or acquiring the companies outright) comes at a very bad time. The financial crisis of 2008-2009 resulted in a virtual drying up of venture capital investment in private biotech companies (especially start-ups), and in the inability of development stage private and public biotech companies to raise funds in the capital markets. In the resulting cash crunch, many biotech companies ceased work on all but their most advanced pipeline drugs, and laid off large numbers of their researchers.

For example, here in the Boston area, Dyax, then a development-stage public company, adopted cash-conserving measures in 2009. It stopped early-stage research on internal (as opposed to partnered) drug candidates, and laid off 36% of its staff. It also sold its shares at low prices in the public markets to raise what cash it could. On December 1, 2009, the FDA approved Dyax’ lead drug, the plasma kallikrein inhibitor ecallantide (Kalbitor) for the treatment of hereditary edema, a rare genetic disorder. The FDA approval process had not been easy (for example, Dyax received a “complete response” letter from the FDA last year). Other development stage biotech companies have not been as fortunate, and venture capital for start-up companies (such as spin-offs of university laboratories) has been very hard to come by.

Unless large pharmaceutical companies are prepared to serve as venture capitalists on a much larger scale than they are currently doing, and to invest in earlier-stage, riskier companies and drug candidates, they may be competing for fewer and fewer good in-licensing opportunities. This will result in bidding up the prices for what opportunities exist, and a dearth of drug candidates for pharmaceutical companies to develop. The venture capital market for early-stage biotechs appears to be easing somewhat, and a few companies (some of which have been discussed in this blog) have managed to obtain funding. However, much uncertainty remains.

Moreover, large pharmaceutical companies will need to have internal researchers (or consultants) who are competent to evaluate in-licensing candidates, and internal researchers who can collaborate with their smaller licensing partners. One critical area for such collaboration is translational medicine, in order to predict the outcomes of treatment with in-licensed drug candidates and to increase the probability of clinical success.

The real issue is that the pharmaceutical industry cannot use mergers, restructurings, across-the-board R&D cuts, and layoffs to solve its productivity crisis, except in the short term. It has to work on the actual problem—how to increase the productivity of R&D.

We recently authored two publications that analyzed the nature of the R&D productivity problem, and which outlined solutions. These are an article, “Overcoming Phase II Attrition Problem”, published in Genetic Engineering News (GEN) and available free on our website, and a book-length report, Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition, available from Cambridge Healthtech Institute (CHI). In summary, we proposed a two-part strategy to increase rate of success in drug development:

• Identify those targets and drugs that have the best chance of success in the discovery phase, mainly via focusing on biology-driven drug discovery (i.e., strategies based on understanding of disease mechanisms).
• Employ early stage proof-of-concept (POC) clinical trials to weed out drugs and targets that do not achieve POC.

With respect to this strategy, it is interesting that two large pharmaceutical companies, the Swiss pharmaceutical giants Novartis and Roche, are not emphasizing layoffs and R&D cuts. Both have biology-driven R&D strategies.

In a recent Reuters article entitled “Killing research no certain cure for Big Pharma”, Novartis’ chairman and former CEO Daniel Vasella is quoted as saying, “You can improve margin up to self-dissolution. You save and you save and you cut costs and cut costs — and then you have no sales anymore and then you have a collapse.”

We have discussed Novartis’ R&D strategy in several articles on this blog, notably our July 20, 2009 article “Biology-driven drug discovery: a ‘disruptive innovation’?”

Roche came by its biology-driven R&D strategy via its 2009 acquisition of Genentech. As we also noted in our July 20 blog post, Roche has been integrating itself with Genentech to become essentially a large biotech company.

In striking contrast to his colleagues in most Big Pharma companies, Roche’s CEO Severin Schwan is optimistic about the future of drug discovery and development in the pharmaceutical industry. He believes that the industry is “poised for a quantum leap into a golden age”, because of continuing discoveries in disease pathways that will enable researchers to design targeted drugs to address unmet medical needs. Roche has no plans to diversify into generics, over-the-counter drugs, or vaccines, as other Big Pharmas have been doing in order to mitigate the lack of high-valued new products coming from their R&D operations.

In addition to overall reductions in R&D and shifting toward greater reliance on in-licensing of drugs, some Big Pharma companies have been taking other, more selective measures in their attempts to cut R&D costs and improve R&D performance. One approach has been to get out of therapeutic areas that are no longer productive for a particular company, and to focus on more promising areas. For example, GSK is eliminating its R&D in depression, anxiety, and pain, and focusing its neuroscience efforts on neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. It is also building a new R&D unit that will focus on rare diseases. These seem to be sensible moves.

With respect to rare diseases, in addition to adopting the “Genzyme strategy” (which seems to be GSK’s main goal), some rare diseases share pathways with more common diseases. As discussed in our July 20 blog post, Novartis has been developing drugs that address these common pathways, beginning with the rare disease and then expanding to the more common diseases.

Another strategic move by several Big Pharma companies is to shift away from small-molecule drugs toward a greater emphasis on biologics. Biologics have shown a higher rate of success in development than small-molecule drugs. However, kinase inhibitors also have shown a higher success rate than other oncology agents that have entered clinical trials in the last 15 years. As with biologics, kinase inhibitors have been developed via biology-driven drug discovery, resulting in much stronger clinical hypotheses for the mechanisms of action of these drugs. Might not shifting toward biology-driven R&D strategies, rather than just shifting toward biologics, enable companies to improve their R&D productivity, both for small-molecule and large-molecule drugs?

Shifting toward biology-driven R&D strategies should also enable companies to reduce R&D costs, by reducing reliance on the costly and unproductive technology-driven “industrialized drug discovery” approach. However, unlike across-the-board R&D cuts, this more selective approach should result in improved R&D productivity.

In the December 10 2009 issue of Nature, researchers at Agios Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA) and their academic collaborators published an article implicating mutations in a metabolic enzyme, cytosolic isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) as a causative factor in a major subset of human brain cancers.

The mutated forms of IDH1 are found in around 80% of human grade II-III gliomas and secondary glioblastomas. The mutations occur in arginine 132, which is usually mutated to histidine. (In other less common mutations, arginine 132 is mutated to serine, cysteine, glycine, or leucine.) Typically, only one allele of IDH1 is mutated. These mutations appear to occur early in the process of tumorigenesis, and often appear to be the first mutation that occurs. The mutant forms of IDH1 are also found in a subset of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML).

The wild-type form of IDH1 catalyzes the NADP+-dependent oxidative decarboxylation of isocitrate to α-ketoglutarate. However, the researchers found that the mutant forms of IDH1 no longer catalyzes this reaction, but instead catalyzes the NADPH-dependent reduction of α-ketoglutarate to R(-)-2-hydroxyglutarate (2HG). This is the result of changes in the active site of the enzyme, as demonstrated by structural studies carried out by the researchers. Tumors that harbor the mutant form of IDH1 have elevated levels of 2HG. The researchers therefore hypothesize that these elevated levels of 2HG are a causative factor in tumorigenesis and/or tumor progression in human gliomas.

This hypothesis is supported by the effects of the familial metabolic disorder 2-hydroxyglutaric aciduria. This disease is caused by a deficiency of 2-hydroxyglutarate dehydrogenase, an enzyme that converts 2HG to α-ketoglutarate. Patients with this metabolic disease have elevated levels of 2HG in bodily fluids and in the brain, and an increased risk of developing brain tumors.

The mechanism by which 2HG might contribute to tumorigenesis is unknown. The authors advance several hypotheses, including increasing reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, serving as an NMDA (N- methyl-D-aspartate) receptor agonist, and competitive inhibition of enzymes that use glutamate and/or α-ketoglutarate resulting in the induction of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α, a transcription factor that facilitates tumor growth under conditions of hypoxia.

According to the authors, these results suggest that in patients with low-grade gliomas containing mutant forms of IDH1, therapeutic inhibition of 2HG production may slow or halt progression of these tumors to lethal secondary glioblastomas. 2HG levels may also be used as a prognostic test for IDH1 mutations, since patients with these mutations tend to live longer than patients with gliomas that have other mutations.

The company that led this research, Agios Pharmaceuticals, is developing a pipeline of oncology drugs based on targeting metabolic pathways in cancer cells. Interestingly, Agios means “holy” in Greek.

Way back in 1924, Otto Warburg demonstrated a difference between cancer cells and normal adult cells in glucose metabolism. In the presence of oxygen, most normal adult cells metabolize glucose to pyruvate via the process of glycolysis, generating two molecules of ATP (the energy currency of the cell) per glucose molecule. In the mitochondria, they then utilize oxygen to catabolize pyruvate to CO2 and water, in the process generating 36 molecules of ATP per glucose molecule. Cancer cells, however, predominantly carry out aerobic glycolysis, in which they carry out glycolytic conversion of glucose to pyruvate, followed by reduction of pyruvate to lactate. Despite the presence of oxygen, cancer cells generate the bulk of their ATP from glycolysis, not mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, in the process consuming large amounts of glucose. The reliance of cancer cells on aerobic glycolysis for their metabolism is known as the “Warburg effect”.

Agios’ platform is based in part on the work of signal-transduction pioneer Lewis Cantley (Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer center/Harvard Medical School, Boston MA). It is Dr. Cantley’s work on the connection between growth factor-mediated signal transduction and aerobic glycolysis that is the basis for Agios’ platform. In particular, Dr. Cantley and his colleagues found that pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2) is a link between signal transduction and aerobic glycolysis. PKM2 binds to tyrosine-phosphorylated signaling proteins, which results in the diversion of glycolytic metabolites from energy production via mitochondria oxidative phosphorylation to anabolic processes required for rapid proliferation of cancer cells.

Agios closed a $33 million Series A financing in July 2008, co-led by Third Rock Ventures, Flagship Ventures and ARCH Venture Partners. In June 2009, Fierce Biotech named Agios to the 2009 FierceBiotech “Fierce 15” list. On December 21, 2009, Agios received funding from the nonprofit organization Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure (ABC2), to supplement Agios’s research on the development of IDH1-based therapeutics and diagnostics. Agios expects to have a lead compound in the clinic some time in 2010.

The Agios website calls cancer metabolism “one of the most exciting new areas of cancer research”. But the study of cancer metabolism, and especially the Warburg effect, is not new—the Warburg effect is a classic observation going back 85 years. Moreover, biotechnologists working in such areas as production of recombinant proteins in CHO cells have been familiar with aerobic glycolysis, which is carried out by most mammalian cell lines in culture, for decades. Nevertheless, cancer metabolism has been well out of the mainstream of cancer drug discovery. It was Dr. Cantley’s work, which links the classic Warburg effect to the mainstream area of signal transduction and protein kinases, which has made Agios’ platform possible.

Similarly, it was Julian Adams’ work on the biology of the proteasome in the 1990s, through a series of biotechnology company mergers that eventually led him to Millennium Pharmaceuticals (now Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company), which resulted in Millennium’s proteasome inhibitor Velcade (bortezomib). Velcade, the only proteasome inhibitor on the market, is now approved by the FDA for the treatment of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma. Prior to Dr. Adams’ work, proteasome biology and protein degradation were out of the mainstream of cancer drug discovery. Now Joseph Bolen, the chief scientific officer of Millennium, sees “protein homeostasis” as one of the most exciting areas of cancer research.

Finally, although the development of protein kinase inhibitors to target signaling pathways in cancer is now well within the mainstream of oncology drug discovery, prior to the discovery and development of imatinib (Novartis’ Gleevec/Glivec) (approved by the FDA in 2001), specific targeting of protein kinases was though to be unlikely, since all of these enzymes have a high degree of similarly in their ATP binding sites. Thus the field of protein kinase inhibitors did not enter the mainstream until the late 1990s-early 2000s.

The take-home lesson is that drug developers may find fertile areas for innovation in seemingly obscure or out-of-the mainstream areas of biology (or of chemistry, as we have discussed in previous blog posts). Some of these areas may be technologically premature, and not quite ready for exploitation by drug developers. However, as demonstrated by our blog post on monoclonal antibodies, even some technologically premature areas may yield to innovators who are willing and able to develop enabling technologies to move these areas up the development curve.

In the 2 October issue of Science (the “Ardipithecus ramidus issue”), there was a Perspective (authored by Matt Kaeberlein and Pankaj Kapahi) and a Report (authored by Colin Selman and his colleagues) on recent findings in anti-aging biology.

Since the late 1980s, researchers have found that caloric restriction (CR) (reduction in caloric intake while maintaining essential nutrients) slows aging in a variety of organisms—yeasts, nematodes, fruit flies, mice, and most recently rhesus macaques. In the recently published 20-year study in rhesus macaques, CR not only increased lifespan, but also delayed the onset of a suite of aging-related disease conditions—diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and brain atrophy. This parallels the studies with other organisms.

Researchers who have been studying the CR model have been attempting to elucidate the mechanisms by which CR works to slow the aging process and to retard aging-related disease. They hope to find targets for drugs to mimic the effects of CR in humans, since long-term CR is not practical for most people. Over the years, researchers have discovered several pathways by which CR appears to exert its effects. The Report describes new research results on one such pathway, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. The Perspective reviews this research in the context of related recent studies.

In a report published in Nature earlier this year (16 July 2009), researchers found that rapamycin administered in food increased the median and maximal lifespan of genetically heterogeneous laboratory mice, whether it was fed to middle-aged (600 days old) or young adult (270 days old) mice. Rapamycin feeding beginning at 600 days of age led to an increase in lifespan of 14% for females and 9% for males, on the basis of age at 90% mortality.

Rapamycin targets mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin), a kinase that regulates signaling pathways that affect many cellular processes. mTOR forms two protein complexes that are active in intracellular signaling—mTORC1 and mTORC2. It is mTORC1 that is most sensitive to rapamycin. mTORC1 works to coordinate cellular growth and survival responses induced by changes in the availability of nutrients, and also responses to cellular stresses (e.g., hypoxia, DNA damage and osmotic stress). Genetic inhibition of TORC1 in yeast and invertebrates has been found to extend their lifespan. In particular, in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, TORC1 interacts with the insulin pathway (via raptor, a component of TORC1) to control lifespan. The role of the insulin pathway in the enhancement of lifespan by CR in C. elegans has been known for many years. The role of mTORC1 at the junction of nutrient and stress sensing pathways, together with these results in invertebrates and now mice, has led researchers to hypothesize that the mTORC1 pathway may be involved in CR-mediated enhancement of lifespan, and that drugs that modulate this pathway may substitute for CR in lifespan extension.

In other studies, inhibition of the mTOR pathway in mice was found to retard development of such aging-related conditions as cancer, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular disease. This effect has also been seen in studies of CR in mice and in nonhuman primates, as stated above.

Rapamycin is an immunosuppressant that is marketed as Wyeth’s (now Pfizer’s, since the October 2009 merger) Rapimmune, to prevent organ transplant rejection. More recently, a derivative of rapamycin, temsirolimus (Wyeth/Pfizer’s Toricel) has been approved for treatment of renal cell carcinoma. The authors of the Nature paper therefore hypothesized that rapamycin may have extended lifespan in the mice either by working via CR-related pathways that control lifespan, by postponing death from cancer, or both.

The finding that oral rapamycin can retard aging in mice, even when fed to 600-day-old mice (the equivalent of 60 years old in humans) raises hope for the development of anti-aging drugs for human use. However, rapamycin itself cannot be used for this purpose because of its immunosuppressant effects. (In the mouse rapamycin feeding studies, the mice were kept under specific pathogen-free conditions.) If researchers were to attempt to modulate the mTORC1 pathway to extend lifespan, they would therefore need to discover other drugs that modulate that pathway without rapamycin’s side effects. Learning more about specific pathway components that may be targeted to increase lifespan may help researchers discover such drugs.

In the new Selman et al. report, researchers endeavored to learn more about how the mTORC1 pathway might extend lifespan in mice. They constructed knockout mice that lacked S6 protein kinase 1 (S6K1). S6K1 is a downstream target of mTORC1, which upregulates mRNA translation and protein synthesis in response to mTORC1 signaling. The researchers found that deletion of the gene for S6K1 resulted in a 19% increase in median lifespan in female mice (as compared to wild-type females), and also increased maximum lifespan. S6K1 deletion had no effect on the lifespan of male mice. This was in contrast to the study with rapamycin feeding, which showed lifespan extension in both sexes, even though the effect in female mice was greater. However, the results of the two studies are not strictly comparable, since mice of different genetic background were used in the two studies.

Female S6K1 knockout mice also showed improvement in several biomarkers of aging (e.g., motor and neurological function, level of physical activity, insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance, fat mass, immunological parameters). Hepatic gene expression in 600-day-old female S6K1 knockout mice resembled that of wild type mice subjected to CR. Female S6K1 knockout mice showed increased hepatic, muscle, and adipose tissue expression (as compared to wild-type mice) of genes associated with other pathways associated with longevity, including genes for sirtuin-1 (SIRT1) and adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK).

Selman et al. went on to obtain evidence that the effect of S6K1 knockout on lifespan in female mice is due to activation of AMPK. The gene expression profile of muscle tissue of long-lived female S6K1 knockout mice resembled the profile of wild-type mice treated with the AMPK activator aminoimidazole carboxamide ribonucleotide (AICAR). Hepatocytes from S6K1 knockout mice also showed enhanced AICAR activation of AMPK as compared to hepatocytes from wild type mice. A parallel study in C. elegans showed that deletion of the aak-2 gene, which encodes a subunit of AMPK, suppresses lifespan extension in mutants that lack rsks-1, the nematode homolog of S6K1. These results suggest that S6K1 knockout may exert its pro-longevity effects via activation of AMPK.

AMPK is found in all eukaryotic organisms, and serves as a sensor of intracellular energy status. In mammals, it also is involved in maintaining whole-body energy balance, and helps regulate food intake and body weight. AMPK has been implicated in metabolic response to CR in eukaryotic organisms from yeasts to humans, and it mediates the effects on lifespan of at least one type of CR regimen in C. elegans. Thus the hypothesis that lifespan extension via the mTORC1-S6K1 pathway works via AMPK activation is an attractive one.

However, it is not known how deletion of S6K1 (or its inhibition via mTORC1 in rapamycin-treated mice) might activate AMPK. Moreover, as pointed out by Kaeberlein and Kapahi, there are other downstream targets of S6K1 that might play a role in anti-aging effects of SK61 deletion or inhibition. Among these is hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α). Moreover, there are other biomolecules and pathways that have been implicated in the effects of CR on retarding aging. These especially include the sirtuins, an evolutionarily conserved family of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+)-dependent protein deacetylases.

As shown by the Perspective and Report in the 2 October issue of Science, anti-aging research is an exciting area of basic biological research, and researchers still have much to learn about pathways that mediate the effects of CR on longevity. However, this field is already being applied to drug discovery and development. A basic issue in applying anti-aging research to the development of drugs is that one clearly cannot use increased lifespan as an endpoint in clinical trials. Companies must test putative anti-aging drugs against one or more diseases of aging. The hope is that any “anti-aging” drugs approved for treatment of one disease of aging 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).

The two principal types of “anti-aging” drugs currently in company pipelines are sirtuin modulators and AMPK activators. Sirtris Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]) is developing the SIRT1 activators SRT501 (a proprietary formulation of the natural product resveratrol) and SRT2104 (a novel synthetic small-molecule SIRT1 activator that is structurally unrelated to resveratrol and is up to 1000-fold more potent). SRT501 is in Phase II clinical trials in type 2 diabetes. SRT2104 has been tested in Phase I trials in healthy volunteers, and was found to be safe and well tolerated. Elixir Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA) is developing a preclinical-stage SIRT1 inhibitor for treatment of Huntington’s disease and certain cancers, and a preclinical-stage SIRT1 activator for treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Elixir also has a research-stage SIRT2 inhibitor under development for treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Companies developing AMPK activators include a collaboration between Metabasis Therapeutics (La Jolla, CA; about to be acquired by Ligand Pharmaceuticals, San Diego, CA) and Merck–preclinical oral AMPK activators, for treatment of type 2 diabetes and hyperlipidemia), Mercury Therapeutics (Woburn, MA)–research and preclinical-stage oral AMPK activators for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and Betagenon (Umea, Sweden)–the preclinical-stage oral AMPK activator BG8702, for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The relationship between sirtuin-modulator developer Sirtris and GSK represents a prime example of the attempt of large pharmaceutical companies to become more “biotech-like” in order to improve their R&D performance. We discussed this strategy in our recent report, Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition. GSK acquired Sirtris for $720 million in June 2008. In December 2008, GSK announced that it had appointed Christoph Westphal, the CEO and co-founder of Sirtris, as the Senior Vice President of GSK’s Centre of Excellence in External Drug Discovery (CEEDD). The CEEDD works to develop external alliances with biotech companies, with the goal of acquiring promising new drug candidates for GSK’s pipeline. Michelle Dipp, who was the vice president of business development at Sirtris at the time of GSK’s appointment of Dr. Wesphal, is now Vice President and the head of the US CEEDD at GSK. Dr. Westphal, who is also a former venture capitalist, remains as CEO of Sirtris, and is based at Sirtris’ Cambridge location.

Thus anti-aging research, despite the fact that it is mainly in the basic research stage, is not only beginning to produce drug candidates, but has also been having an impact on the organizational strategy of one of the major pharmaceutical companies, GSK.