Tag Archives: genetics

The Needle Issue #13

3 Sep
Juan-Carlos-Lopez
Juan Carlos Lopez
Andy-Marshall
Andy Marshall

While most parts of biotech early-stage financing have been in the doldrums in the past two or three years, so-called tech-bio startups have been thriving. Since the posterchild $1.0 billion mega series A round last April of Xaira Therapeutics, which was founded by scientists out of Nobel prize winner David Baker’s group at the University of Washington, several startups seeking to develop machine learning models for designing miniproteins or peptide binders of challenging or ‘undruggable’ targets have emerged, including Enlaza TherapeuticsVilya, and UbiquiTx. All of these have been developing their own proprietary models based on Alphafold 3Boltz-1 or Chai-1 for structure prediction and tools based off RFdiffusionBindcraft and ProteinMPNN for peptide design. Predicting CDR loops for de novo antibody design is a considerably more challenging task than for simple peptides, but Nabla Bio, founded last year by scientists out of George Church’s lab at Harvard, claims it is doing just that for GPCRs and ion channels. Earlier this month, Chai Discovery also launched with a $100 million series A from Menlo Ventures to optimize multimodal generative models such as Chai-2, which, according to the company, already “achieves a 16% hit rate in de novo antibody design.”

Designing peptides that can selectively bind to a protein target and show therapeutic activity remains a challenge, however, as it often depends on the availability of high-quality structural information about the target molecule, which is seldom available for many disease-relevant proteins that are unstructured or conformationally disordered. Similarly modeling protein-protein interactions like antibody-antigen interactions that are extremely dynamic and floppy also poses problems. All of which raises the question as to whether binders could be predicted simply using amino acid sequence information instead of structural data.

Now, a team led by Pranam Chatterjee from Duke University has addressed this question. In a recent paper in Nature Biotechnology, Chatterjee and his collaborators report the creation of PepMLM, a peptide binder design algorithm based on masked language modeling. A key feature of the algorithm is that it depends exclusively on protein sequence, not structure. Built upon the ESM-2 (Evolutionary Scale Modeling 2) protein language model, PepMLM masks and reconstructs entire peptide regions appended to target protein sequences. This design compels the model to generate context-specific binders. To train PepMLM, the team used high-quality curated datasets from PepNN and Propedia comprising ~10k putative peptide-protein sequence pairs. PepMLM output was consistently found to outperform RFDiffusion on held-out/structured targets, with a higher hit rate (38% to 29%) and low perplexities that closely matched real binders, with generated sequences showing target specificity, even in stringent permutation tests.

The model generated binders predicted to have higher binding scores than native and structure-based binders designed through other methods. Indeed, in vitro validation experiments confirmed the high affinity and specificity of PepMLM-generated binders.

Chatterjee and his colleagues went on to turn their binders into degraders by fusing them to E3 ubiquitin ligase domains, such as CHIP/STUB1. When tested in vitro, over 60% of these degraders knocked down their target proteins. PepMLM peptides achieved nanomolar binding affinity on the drug targets neural cell adhesion molecule 1 (NCAM1), a key marker of acute myeloid leukemia, and anti-Müllerian hormone type 2 receptor (AMHR2), a critical regulator of polycystic ovarian syndrome (where RFDiffusion-predicted peptides failed to bind). The authors also demonstrated that PepMLM-predicted peptides fused to E3 ubiquitin ligases not only degraded MSH3 but completely eliminated mutant huntingtin protein exon 1 containing 43 CAG repeats in Huntington disease patient-derived fibroblast cells. Similar results were obtained for a PepMLM-predicted peptide binder of MESH1, a protein controlling ferroptosis, in collaboration with Ashley Chi Jen-Tsan’s group at Duke University (RFDiffusion again gave no hits). And with Madelaine Dumas and Hector Aguilar-Carreno’s group, in collaboration with Matt Delisa’s group at Cornell University, PepMLM-derived peptides bound and reduced levels of viral phosphoproteins from Nipah, Hendra, and human metapneumovirus (HMPV); indeed, in live HMPV infection models, the PepMLM peptide mediated high levels of P protein clearance.

The ability of PepMLM to design binders purely on the basis of target-protein sequence is an important advance towards designing therapeutic peptides against hitherto inaccessible targets that lack structural data. Future work should explore how to incorporate chemical modifications such as cyclization or stapling to enhance stability of the binders, as well as the evaluation of the strongest candidates in vivo. Another challenge will be to ameliorate the immunogenicity of these foreign de novo proteins. The use of protein engineering approaches, such as incorporation of mirror amino acids that can cloak foreign peptides from the immune system, may offer solutions. But it is likely that candidates discovered using sequence or structure prediction tools will still require lengthy development programs to be turned into safe and effective drugs, despite the hype.

Pullan’s Pieces #4 – January – A Corner on Market Sentiments – Seed to Series A

19 Aug

As the saying goes, “What’s in a name?  That which we call a Series A by any other name would smell as sweet.”  Er… something like that, right? Hmmm, maybe it went a little bit differently.

But whatever it be, or not to be😊, the Seed Round is the new Series A. Clearly. I think we’ve all felt it for sometime but the data is in and the good ‘ole Series A just don’t buy what it used to.  Nahhh… the Seed round does that, and it may buy more (equity) than it used to as a Series A (more data hunting and crunching required but one gets a sense that the venture capitalists are, well, capitalizing).

Labiotech does a really nice job collecting and summarizing a variety of topics related to financings and dealmaking in the biotech sector and the 2024 breakdown of funding offers the following approximations (roughly, with some rounding made by this author):

The internal breakdowns for amounts invested look like this:

Readers of this corner will know that we keep a close eye on the XBI

As usual, the outliers can skew the numbers (more on this in a moment) but the median amounts invested into these rounds puh-rihhhty much drive the nail in the coffin of the old thinking about Series dynamics. This data could be charted in another way in which an inverted bell curve would appear and a GAPING hole between $20M and $50M would stare back at you.  Think about that for a moment… if you can’t get to value inflection for ~$15-20M, you better be raising $60-75M and have multiple reasons to do so as a cursory view of the companies listed in the dataset further indicates that the lower outliers (sub-median) on the Series A were generally geared for “finding out” about a single asset in the clinic.

Back to that previously mentioned outlier that can skew the averages… it also happens to bring even more of a spotlight to those famed words from Shakespeare which began this Corner on Market Sentiments.  One of the companies in the 2024 data set raised a whopping $100,000,000 … as a Seed Round!!  Indeed, a rose by any other name…

The Needle Issue #12

12 Aug
Juan-Carlos-Lopez
Juan Carlos Lopez
Andy-Marshall
Andy Marshall

The Summer BIO report “The State of Emerging Biotech Companies: Investment, Deal, and Pipeline Trends” highlights how much China-based programs have contributed to the drug pipeline over the past 10 years.

A couple of weeks ago, Bloomberg also summarized deal data showing how the share of global licensing by Chinese biotech companies has jumped over the past two years.

Judging by a report listing 16 ‘high-value’ currently unlicensed assets from China being hawked by longtime Phalanx Investment Partners analyst David Maris, there is more licensing to come.

In this context, we read with interest a recent Science Immunology paper describing a monoclonal antibody (mAb) program targeting a novel phagocytic checkpoint under development at yet another Chinese biotech: MedimScience, founded in Hangzhou City in 2021. MedimScience is one of a growing cadre of companies, including LTZ TherapeuticsDren BioChengdu KanghongAntengene and ImmuneOnco, looking to develop novel myeloid cell engagers/phagocytic checkpoint inhibitors.

Phagocytic checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that circumvent the molecular cloaks that tumors throw around themselves to avoid uptake and destruction by myeloid cells, such as macrophages, monocytes, and neutrophils. The strategy first came to the fore through pioneering work on the ‘don’t eat me’ signal CD47, work carried out by Ravi Majeti and Irv Weissman at Stanford. Results from their preclinical studies spurred the launch of startup Forty Seven (subsequently acquired in 2020 by Gilead) and the first-in-class anti-CD47 IgG4 magrolimabprogram.Phase 1b trial results of magrolimab combined with azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients were so impressive that, by 2022, more than 20 different companies had anti-CD47 programs in clinical development. This blew up spectacularly when early trials failed to be reproduced in larger efficacy trials of combinations — failure that was largely attributed to intolerability/anemia issues related to the target, slow action/early disease progression, and a failure to account for patient heterogeneity with regard to P53 mutation status. But the strategy is compelling and the hunt for new phagocytic checkpoints has continued with new antibody formats seeking to avoid these pitfalls.

Now, Cheng Zhong and his colleagues at MedimScience report the identification of a new evasion actor — PSGL-1 — that suppresses macrophage-mediated phagocytosis in a variety of hematological malignancies. PSGL-1, which was previously known largely for its role in cell adhesion, is highly expressed in various hematologic cancers, including AML, T-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and multiple myeloma (MM).

Moreover, high PSGL-1 expression has been found to correlate with poor patient survival in AML, T-ALL and MM.

Using several mouse models, the researchers found that tumors lacking PSGL-1 show slower progression, increased macrophage infiltration, and higher rates of phagocytosis by macrophages, effects that were independent of T cells or dendritic cells.

Mechanistically, the team found that PSGL-1 disrupts the interaction between the cell-adhesion molecule ICAM-1 on tumor cells and the integrin LFA-1 (CD11a/CD18) on macrophages. And when they tested Novartis’ lifitegrast, an inhibitor of ICAM-1/LFA-1 binding, they found this largely abrogates the phagocytosis of PSGL-1 knockout tumor cells, confirming PSGL1’s role in impairing prophagocytic signaling and cytoskeletal reorganization required for effective tumor-cell engulfment.

The authors went on to develop a humanized mAb against PSGL-1 and show its ability to induce phagocytosis of human tumor cells in vitro and to reduce tumor burden in mouse models of AML, T-ALL, and MM. The antibody showed a good safety profile in non-human primates with no significant toxicity at high doses. Additionally, PSGL-1 blockade synergized with chemotherapy (doxorubicin) and antibody-based therapies (anti-CD47 and anti-CD38), further underscoring the translational potential of this strategy, particularly in treatment-resistant settings.

Pullan’s Pieces #4 – China, Japan, Europe, Korea vs US- Collaborate or Compete?

5 Aug

As a deal maker, where should I go for a deal?  Where is my competition?

There is so much written about China, I thought I would try to put it in the context of other countries.

DEMOGRAPHICS:  China is Big but low GDP per capita, Japan has the oldest population.  Both Japan and China may have reached peak population, while the US has immigration to continue growth.  China and Japan have more big cities (making clinical trial recruitment easier).

The Medical Culture varies tremendously.  

The US, with the 3rd largest population and private insurance, has the biggest market

But there are even bigger differences in the magnitude of sales of new drugs. In the US, to be in the top 10 in 2031 means double digit billions.

The biggest company R&D budgets per company are in “Global companies”.

The biggest European and Japanese companies have become global companies. 

The biggest companies in the US have 45%-70% of their Rx sales in the US.

The biggest companies in Europe have 15%-30% of their Rx sales in Europe.

The biggest companies in Japan have <10% (Takeda) to 39% of their sales in Japan. (Smaller Japanese companies have most of their Rx sales in Japan)

The biggest Chinese companies have 80-95% of their sales in China.

2024 saw a surge in approvals: In 2024, China first-approved 93 innovative drugs, with 42% being domestically developed. But China is losing domestic market share to MNCs.

The biggest Korean companies with biologics (Samsung and Celltrion) have 10-20% of their sales in Korea.  The other big Korean companies have 70-90% of their Rx sales in Korea.

But China has almost as many drugs in Phase 1 thru 3 as the US, in almost as many companies as in the US.  

There are more companies getting series A in the US and in China but the dollar amount is smaller in China. 

The US leads in IPOs

But the Hong Kong Hang Seng Biotech Index was up 87% year to date (while the US XBI was down 6%).  

Europe is active in company acquisitions, but Asia is not.  

For companies with headquarters in the US, Europe, Japan and Korea:  most partnering deals are early and with more in-licensing than out-licensing. 

China does more out-licensing than in-licensing.  

So as a deal-maker, what do I think this data suggests?

1)  You need to capture value from the US, the biggest market and home of blockbusters.

2) US companies do the most in-licensing. US and Europe do the most M&A.

3) The most deals in 2024 and 1st Half of 2025 are still done at discovery and preclinical.

4) Japanese companies are increasingly global companies and do more in-licensing than out-licensing.

5)  China is a source of drugs to bring in, with many drugs in the pipeline and new series A companies needing partners to maximize their value. China does more out-licensing than in-licensing.  Presumably, the huge China vs China competition is pushing Chinese companies to innovate more to compete and to do deals.   And more exits (IPOs and M&A) encourages more VC funding of innovation.

6)  But the low cost and the high populations cities (for fast recruitment) means China should be considered for collaborations for your drug development.  (Just remember you need 20% of patients in the US for FDA approval).

7) Korea is a high-income market but small.  In-licensing deals are often early or at market stage.

Pullan’s Pieces #3 – January – A Corner on Market Sentiments – Seed to Series A

29 Jul

As the saying goes, “What’s in a name? That which we call a Series A by any other name would smell as sweet.” Er… something like that, right? Hmmm, maybe it went a little bit differently.

But whatever it be, or not to be😊, the Seed Round is the new Series A. Clearly. I think we’ve all felt it for sometime but the data is in and the good ‘ole Series A just don’t buy what it used to. Nahhh… the Seed round does that, and it may buy more (equity) than it used to as a Series A (more data hunting and crunching required but one gets a sense that the venture capitalists are, well, capitalizing).

Labiotech does a really nice job collecting and summarizing a variety of topics related to financings and dealmaking in the biotech sector and the 2024 breakdown of funding offers the following approximations (roughly, with some rounding made by this author):

The internal breakdowns for amounts invested look like this:


Readers of this corner will know that we keep a close eye on the XBI

As usual, the outliers can skew the numbers (more on this in a moment) but the median amounts invested into these rounds puh-rihhhty much drive the nail in the coffin of the old thinking about Series dynamics. This data could be charted in another way in which an inverted bell curve would appear and a GAPING hole between $20M and $50M would stare back at you. Think about that for a moment… if you can’t get to value inflection for ~$15-20M, you better be raising $60-75M and have multiple reasons to do so as a cursory view of the companies listed in the dataset further indicates that the lower outliers (sub-median) on the Series A were generally geared for “finding out” about a single asset in the clinic.

Back to that previously mentioned outlier that can skew the averages… it also happens to bring even more of a spotlight to those famed words from Shakespeare which began this Corner on Market Sentiments. One of the companies in the 2024 data set raised a whopping $100,000,000 … as a Seed Round!! Indeed, a rose by any other name…

The Needle Issue #11

22 Jul
Juan-Carlos-Lopez
Juan Carlos Lopez
Andy-Marshall
Andy Marshall

Haystack chat

Molecular glue degraders (MGDs) are currently having a bit of a moment. In the first half of 2025, the number of papers describing such compounds has doubled.

2025 has also witnessed a whole raft of MGD startups publish research related to their programs:

Startup (location) Scientific founders (location) 2025 paper
Ambagon Therapeutics (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) Michelle Arkin (UCSF, San Francisco, CA), Luc Brunsveld and Christian Ottman (Eindhoven University of Technology) Molecular glues of the regulatory ChREBP/14-3-3 complex protect beta cells from glucolipotoxicity
Cyrus Therapeutics (Seoul, South Korea) Keon Wook Kang (Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea) High cereblon expression in neuroendocrine cancer confers vulnerability to GSPT1 molecular glue degrader
Matchpoint Therapeutics (Cambridge, MA) Nathanael Gray and Tinghu Zhang (Stanford University, Stanford, CA) and Edward Chouchani and Jianwei Che (Dana Farber, Boston, MA) Structure-guided design of a truncated heterobivalent chemical probe degrader of IRE1α
Monte Rosa Therapeutics (Boston, MA) Rajesh Chopra and Ian Collins (The Institute of Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK); Nicolas Thomä (Friedrich Miescher Institute, Basel, Switzerland) Structure-guided strategy for identifying human proteins predicted to be compatible with cereblon-based molecular glue degraders (see below for further details)
Oniria Therapeutics (Barcelona, Spain) Héctor G. Palmer, Esther Riambau, Isabel Puig, Josep Tabernero, Xavier Barril, and Carles Galdeano (Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, University of Barcelona and ICREA) Cullin-RING ligase BioE3 reveals molecular-glue-induced neosubstrates and rewiring of the endogenous Cereblon ubiquitome
Proxygen (Vienna, Austria) Georg Winter (CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine, Vienna, Austria) Selective analysis of protein degradation by mass spectrometry enables degradome analysis and identification of direct protein substrates of molecular glues
Proteovant Therapeutics (King of Prussia, PA) Shaomeng Wang (University of Michigan, MI) Development of PVTX-405 as a potent and highly selective molecular glue degrader of IKZF2 for cancer immunotherapy
Sartar Therapeutics (Helsinki, Finland) Olli Kallioniemi and Harri Sihto (University of Helsinki, Finland) Pharmacokinetic profile and in vivo anticancer efficacy of anagrelide administered subcutaneously in rodents
SEED Therapeutics (King of Prussia, PA) Ning Zheng (University of Seattle, WA), Michele Pagano (New York University, NY) and Avram Hershko (Technion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel) UM171 glue co-opts CRL3 RING E3 ligase substrate coreceptor KBTBD4 as well as HDAC1/2, resulting in degradation of CoREST corepressors
Shenandoah Therapeutics (South San Francisco, CA) Jerry Crabtree and Nathanael Gray (Stanford University, Stanford, CA) A bivalent molecular glue linking lysine acetyltransferases to redirect p300 and CBP to activate programmed cell death genes normally repressed by the oncogenic driver, BCL6
Zenith Therapeutics (Basel, Switzerland) Daniel Nomura (UC Berkeley, CA); Nicolas Thomä (Friedrich Miescher Institute, Basel, Switzerland), and Martin Stahl (former Roche, LifeMine) Putative molecular glue niclosamide acts via ubiquitin E3 ligase CRL4AMBRA1-mediated degradation of cyclin D1 following mitochondrial membrane depolarization

On the commercial front, the march of startups receiving funding shows no sign of slowing down, with Trimtech Therapeutics and Booster Therapeutics raising substantive rounds. The first few months of the year have also seen the continuation of last year’s pharma MGD scramble to license programs from Triana Biomedicines and Neomorph, with deals based around molecular glues from Abbvie and Merck targeting Neomorph and Springworks, respectively.

In June, one of the flagship developers, Kymera Therapeutics, priced a $250.8 million follow-on offering (no mean feat in the present market) after announcing positive phase 1 safety data for KT-621, a novel MGD against STAT-6, and clinching a deal with Gilead Sciencesforanother small-molecule glue targeting cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2). All in all, we count 27 companies currently active in this preclinical space (Ambagon TherapeuticsAmphista Therapeutics, Booster Therapeutics, Captor TherapeuticsCyrus TherapeuticsDegron TherapeuticsDunad TherapeuticsF5 TherapeuticsFrontier MedicinesLifemine TherapeuticsMagnet Biomedicine,Matchpoint TherapeuticsMontara TherapeuticsMonte Rosa Therapeutics, Neomorph, Oniria TherapeuticsProxygenSartar TherapeuticsSEED Therapeutics, Shanghai Dage Biomedical Technology, Shenandoah TherapeuticsSK Biopharmaceuticals (Proteovant Therapeutics),Triana,Trimtech,Venquis TherapeuticsYDS Pharmatech, and Zenith Therapeutics). There are likely more.

Unlike their more recent cousins, the PROTACs (proteolysis targeting chimeras), MGDs have a long history. The archetypal MGD, thalidomide, was discovered back in the 1950s. From the late 1990s, a new generation of immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD) derivatives of thalidomide were synthesized, culminating with the approvals of lenalidomide and pomalidomide for myeloma (which formed the basis for the Celgene (now BMS) franchise).

Unlike PROTACs, which use two ligands with a linker and tend to be rather unwieldy, MGDs are small, single compounds that induce conformational changes in E3 ubiquitin ligases and target proteins, reshaping both to enable binding. The vast majority of MGDs bind Cereblon (CRBN), leading to ubiquitination of the protein of interest and degradation in the 26S proteasome, although work is progressing to broaden MGD action to some of the other 600 or so E3 ubiquitin ligases (e.g., DCAF11,15 or 16DDB1SIAHKEAP1VHLβ-TrCPNedd1 and, just last week, TRIM21).

A key challenge in finding new MGDs has been a lack of understanding of the structural rules whereby MGDs turn their target proteins into CRBN ‘neosubstrates’, which has meant MGD ‘hit-finding’ is much more challenging, with fewer degrees of freedom than PROTACs.

What drug hunters have established is that many protein targets of glues contain a β-hairpin structural motif known as the ‘G-loop’. When a MGD brings a target together with CRBN, one end of the MGD interacts with a binding pocket in the C-terminal domain of CRBN, while the other end protrudes from the pocket and interacts with the G-loop (part of the so-called ‘degron’) in the neosubstrate. But how many proteins possess the β-hairpin G-loop or whether the loop is strictly necessary for MGD action have remained open questions. A recent study by Monte Rosa Therapeutics’ scientists starts to tackle these issues, disclosing a large cadre of potential new substrates for CRBN, some of which depart from the canonical β-hairpin G-loop, radically expanding MGD target space.

To map the full range of proteins potentially recruitable by CRBN through MGDs, the team led by John Castle and Sharon Townson developed computational algorithms to search for β-hairpin G-loop motifs in protein structures from two databases: Protein Data Bank and AlphaFold2. This approach resulted in 1424 candidate proteins, some of which were experimentally validated in MGD assays. The list included previously known neosubstrates, but also new proteins such as NEK7—a protein of interest as an autoimmunity target.

The researchers then wondered if the full β-hairpin structure of the G-loop is required for CRBN recognition and rescreened the structure databases looking for a minimal, structurally defined helical G-loop motif. This resulted in the identification of 184 additional potential neosubstrates, including mTOR, a well-established therapeutic target for drugs like rapamycin and sirolimus. Crystallographic data showed that the binding of this helical G-loop to CRBN is similar to that of the canonical β-hairpin G-loops.

As these protein–protein interactions have been well characterized, the team then tried to identify an even wider set of potential neosubstrates, looking now for proteins with sequences that might result in surfaces with electrostatic properties similar to known CRBN interactors, independently of secondary structure and the existence of G-loops. Using surface-matching algorithms, they identified and validated VAV1 (another autoimmune disease target) as a CRBN neosubstrate, providing compelling evidence that G-loops are not strictly necessary for the action of MGDs.

These findings show that CRBN recruitment through MGDs can be driven by a broader set of structural features than previously thought. The identification of a large number of neosubstrates potentially opens up a whole new set of previously ‘undruggable’ targets to MGDs (>1,600 proteins from many target classes, according to the Monte Rosa team).

The big questions, though, are still ahead. How will drug developers mitigate the risks of ‘off-tissue’ toxicity as this swathe of novel MGD compounds and new targets make their way into the clinic?One answer to the toxicity concern is molecular glue antibody conjugates (MACs), which can better localize glues to the tissue of interest. But that’s a subject for a whole other future Haystack Chat!

Pullan’s Pieces #2 – Top Drug Sellers by Geo

15 Jul

By Eric Hayes

What do analysts think will be the top 10 drugs in the year 2031 (as searched in GlobalData)?

Top 10 in the US in 2031 (USD Millions)

In the US analyst forecasts for 2031, obesity dominates (with immunology, derm and infection for other TAs). Along with the obesity peptides are 2 small molecules and 2 MAbs. The sales are in the tens of billions.

Top 10 in Europe (USD Millions)

In Europe, along with the obesity drugs and dupixent in derm, we see the oncology ADC Enhertu, the ang2 ophthalmology drug Vabysmo, a CNS CD20, and a GI integrin in the top 10. Sales are in the single digit billions.

Top 10 in Japan (USD Millions)

In Japan, obesity is not visible in the top 10. An anti-infective tops the list, followed by CNS, oncology, GI and including heme disorders. There are companies not in the top 20 for global sales. Most of the top 10 have sales below $1B.

Top 10 in China (USD Millions)

For China, obesity is back in the top 10, but Gardasil, an oncology HPV vaccine tops the list. Local company “fast followers” are apparent and most of the top forecasted drugs are not yet launched (presumably a reflection of the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical environment). To get into the top 10, sales are above $500M.

Conclusion: The marketplace for drugs shows considerable variation in different regions around the world.