Tag Archives: medicine

The Needle Issue #27

27 May
Juan-Carlos-Lopez
Juan Carlos Lopez
Andy-Marshall
Andy Marshall

This week, we provide some lightning takes on recent translational papers that caught our eye. We saw several preclinical advances in approaches for pain, neurodegeneration, cardiovascular disease and bone disorders. In the gene-editing arena, several new large DNA insertion technologies and RNA-targeting CRISPR systems came to the fore.

But before we dive in, we want to highlight the New England Journal of Medicine report from the groups of Rebecca Ahrens-Niklas and Lindsey George at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that details a neuroepithelial tumor in a 5-year-old boy with severe mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPSI, a.k.a. Hurler Syndrome) 4 years after receiving an intracisternal injection of an AAV-9 gene therapy.

Needless to say, approved AAV-based gene therapy products have a long track record of safety, efficacy and long-term transgene expression, but the specter of insertional mutagenesis has always loomed, even though AAV is a predominantly episomal vector. More than five years ago, a paper on hemophilia A dog studies published in Nature Biotechnology reported 1,741 unique AAV integration events in liver and clonal expansions of transduced hepatocytes, with many integrations near growth-related genes. In that case, no tumors were seen. Human liver-biopsy studies after AAV gene therapy have similarly made clear that integration and clonal hepatocyte expansion can happen, while not showing obvious malignant transformation. The NEJM report stands out as providing the first well-documented case of human oncogenesis plausibly linked to AAV vector integration. We can expect it to lead to tighter regulatory and post-marketing oversight of AAV gene therapies, as illustrated by the clinical hold the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already placed on Regenxbio’s gene therapy for Hurler, which was reported back in January. The takeaway for the investment community is that this is not entirely unexpected and should be viewed in the context of >6,000 patients receiving AAV gene therapy to date without major long-term toxic effects.

Safety signals have also been a recurring theme for drugs targeting sodium voltage channels (Nav1.7) in different pain indications. Multiple industry programs have encountered problems with off-target effects and poor clinical translation. Now a team led by Wengsheng Zhang at Sichuan University has identified potent nonopioid analgesics targeting multiple voltage-gated sodium channel isotypes with improved efficacy when tested their efficacy in perioperative rat models (PNAS). We wonder how such a broad approach would mitigate some of the safety flags encountered by previous clinical trials of investigational drugs targeting this pathway. Elsewhere, Xiao-Ming Li and collaborators at Zhejiang University School of Medicine set out to mitigate some of the adverse events of cannabinoid 1 (CB1) agonists, such as reduced locomotion, hypothermia, addiction and analgesic tolerance using so-called biased signaling and targeting downstream signaling cascades mediated predominantly through inhibitory guanine nucleotide binding protein (Gi), rather than beta-arrestin. They show their Gi-biased inhibitors display analgesic properties, but with reduced side effects when tested in mice (Cell). Over recent years, industry has explored cannabinoids to treat a wide range diseases, including chronic kidney diseaseglaucoma and even obesity, again with limited clinical success. It will be interesting to see whether drugging a downstream signaling pathway will bring greater reward.

While cannabinoids haven’t exactly set the world of company formation alight, platforms leveraging autophagy biology are another story. In the past five years, Lysoway TherapeuticsRetro BiosciencesCasma TherapeuticsAutomera TherapeuticsPAQ Therapeutics and AUTOTAC Bio have all received funding for platforms leveraging auto-phagosomal pathways, such as ATTECAUTACAUTOTACchaperone-mediated autophagy or AUTAB. The latest instantiation of ATTEC is described in a paper by Einar Sigurdsson and researchers from New York University, who develop single-domain antibodies to promote autophagy-mediated tau degradation in patient-derived neurons, improving motor function in tauopathy mice (Science Translational Medicine). Autophagy is also the focus for a collaboration between the Jia-Hong Lu team at the University of Macau and MindRank AI, which developed an AI-based screening platform using a variational autoencoder trained on a library (from MedChemExpress and TSBiochem) of over 1 million compounds to identify brain-penetrant small molecule autophagy enhancers effective in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease (Nature Biomedical Engineering).

Elsewhere in the neurodegenerative disease field, TDP-43 aggregation is a hallmark of disorders like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia. Acurastem and Quralis have been tackling these diseases using antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) to modulate splice-switching of genes affected by mutant TDP-43. But new research from the groups of James Shorter at the University of Pennsylvania, Christopher Donnelly at the University of Pittsburgh, Nicolas Fawzi at Brown University, Brigid Jensen at Thomas Jefferson University and Jeetain Mittal at Texas A&M reveals that short 34-nucleotide RNAs can act as chaperones to inhibit TDP-43 aggregation and prevent neurodegeneration in the mouse. This potentially opens up short RNA chaperones as a new therapeutic modality for protein-folding disorders (Science).

Moving away from the CNS, some intriguing advances in other therapeutic areas popped into our inbox. One of the new frontiers for oligonucleotide therapies is common cardiovascular indications, such as heart failure and atrial fibrillation. For example, Ionis’ transferrin-receptor 1 targeted ASO for downregulating phospholamban in R14-deleted dilated cardiomyopathy just entered phase 1 testing in a development partnership with AstraZeneca. Along these lines, two teams headed by Matthias Nahrendorf and Maarten Hulsman at Harvard Medical School report another target, osteopontin (Spp1), downregulation of which with an antibody–siRNA conjugate targeting TREM2+ cardiac macrophages suppresses atrial fibrillation in mice (Nature Cardiovascular Research).

Another area likely to attract more commercial activity going forward is metabolic bone disease. Last December, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made a landmark regulatory shift, formally qualifying percentage change from baseline at 24 months in total hip bone mineral density (BMD) via imaging as a validated surrogate endpoint (previously, bone disease trial times typically took anywhere from two to five years). Two recent papers discuss new therapeutic approaches to heterotopic bone formation after injury. In the first, two teams led by Benjamin Levi and Michael Dellinger from UT Southwestern show that vascular endothelial growth factor D (VEGF-D)-induced lymphangiogenesis can promote heterotopic bone resorption in mice (PNAS). And across the Atlantic, the groups of Johan Keller and Anke Baranowsky at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf target extracellular traps from myeloid cells using an FDA-approved recombinant DNAse 1 Pulmozyme to inhibit traumatic heterotopic ossification in mice (Science Translational Medicine; Roche/Genentech’s Pulmozyme (dornase alpha) is approved only for the pulmonary indication cystic fibrosis).

Moving onto advanced genetic therapeutics, several advances caught our attention in the gene-editing space. While programmable recombinases/integrases capable of introducing genetic cargoes >10 kb have been prominent in journals, momentum in commercializing these approaches has proceeded at a moderate pace, with Brink TherapeuticsSeamless Therapeutics and Stylus Medicine all raising funding in the past three years. The ability of recombinases to introduce large constructs has been touted as a key advantage over prime editing, which traditionally can only achieve desired edits no larger than ~300 bp. In this context, three recent papers disclose alternative prime-editing approaches for the genomic insertion of large sequences, overcoming the sequence size limitation. First, research patented by Ying Zhang’s group at Wuhan University shows that quadruple paired pegRNAs enable prime editing based genomic insertion of sequences as long as 26 kb in vitro (Nature). Second, the teams of Haoyi Wang, Chenxin Wang and Wei Li at the Chinese Academy of Science developed “PRIME-In”, a genome editing platform for the integration of up to 3 kb-long DNA sequences in human T cells independent of double-stranded DNA breaks (Nature Biomedical Engineering). Last, the groups of Erik Sontheimer and Wen Xue at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School described a “prime assembly” approach for the insertion of DNA fragments as long as 11 kb (Nature).

Finally, in the area of RNA editing, two recent studies expand the palette of CRISPR–Cas effectors capable of targeting and manipulating cells at the level of transcripts rather than nuclear DNA. A paper from I-Ming Hsing’s group at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology describes the first use of DNA-guided CRISPR–Cas12a effectors for programmable RNA recognition and cleavage (Nature Biotechnology). In a second paper, Yang Liu’s team at the University of Utah, Chase Biesel’s group at University of Würzburg and scientists from Akribion Therapeutics and BRAIN Biotech engineer CRISPR–Cas12a2 for the selective, DNA-triggered killing of virally infected human cells on the basis of their transcriptional profile (Nature).

Conference roundup

Selected startups raising funds in past three years presenting data at the American Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ASCGT), Boston, May 11–15.

Preclinical financings (from April 21 to May 4)

Preclinical financings (from May 5 to May 11)

Preclinical financings (from May 12 to May 14)

Preclinical deals (from April 16 to April 29)

Preclinical deals (from April 30 to May 13)

Stay in touch

We hope you enjoyed this issue of The Needle and hit the button below to receive forthcoming issues into your inbox

If you’re interested in commercializing your science, get in touch. We can help you figure out the next steps for your startup’s translational research program and connect you with the right investor. Follow us on X, BlueSky and LinkedIn. Please send feedback; we’d love to hear from you (info@haystacksci.com).

The Needle Issue #26

12 May
Juan-Carlos-Lopez
Juan Carlos Lopez
Andy-Marshall
Andy Marshall

An old adage in drug development states that any successful program for an advanced medicine must overcome three central challenges: first, delivery; second, delivery, and third … delivery! Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology and N-acetyl galactosamine-(GalNAc) conjugates have opened the liver to a wide range of genetic medicines, and transferrin 1 receptor (TfR1) conjugates are beginning to access the CNS via intravenous delivery with brain-shuttle technology. But tissues like the lung, kidney, muscle and heart remain very much a work in progress.

In the pulmonary space, a small cadre of companies are pursuing inhaled LNP delivery technologies. Recode TherapeuticsVertex Pharmaceuticals and Arcturus are the main players, while other firms such as 4DMT and Krystal Biotech are focusing on viral gene therapies for lung delivery.

Just a few days ago, one of these LNP programs got the chop. The Vertex/Moderna phase 1/2 study of VX-522, an aerosolized LNP to deliver mRNA encoding full-length cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) to the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, which had been paused due to tolerability issues, is now permanently discontinued. According to reports, the Moderna LNP was the culprit, leading to lung inflammation. That leaves Recode and Arcturus as the frontrunners, a rather small field, given the entire market opportunity for a pulmonary delivery solution. All told, in 2023, there were 569.2 million cases of chronic respiratory diseases and 4.2 million deaths from respiratory disease.

Recode now is enrolling patients into the phase 2 trial of its Selective Organ Targeting (SORT), LNP platform (RCT2100) that delivers an mRNA encoding CFTR in combination with the small-molecule CFTR potentiator ivacaftor (the SORT technology was originally licensed out of Daniel Siegwart’s group at UT Southwestern). The other LNP platform, Arcturus’ LUNAR LNP technology, also has encouraging interim data from its phase 2 trial in cystic fibrosis patients and from its program delivering ornithine transcarbamylase mRNA.

These LNPs (and most other LNP delivery platforms) are built around the same four common components: an amino ionizable lipid, a helper lipid, a polyethylene glycol lipid and cholesterol. The formulations follow this scheme but with different combinations of proprietary lipid forms; thus, in Arcturus’ LUNAR LNP, distearoylphosphatidylcholine (DSPC) performs the helper lipid function, whereas in Recode’s SORT LNP, it is 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine (DOPE). Overall, however, just a handful of novel lipid components have gone into humans so far.

According to Siegwart, the field is in dire need of developing a broader palette of cationic lipids that are both efficient and non-toxic for the pulmonary epithelium; ultimately, the goal would be a delivery technology capable of targeting specific cell types in the lung (with many new cell subtypes continuing to be identified).

In a recent article in Nature Biomedical Engineering, Siegwart and his group at UT Southwestern introduce the design and evaluation of a new class of lung-targeting (LuT) lipids that enable the highly efficient and selective delivery of mRNA and CRISPR–Cas9 gene-editing systems to the lungs.

They synthesized and screened a library of 444 lipids using a combinatorial approach, systematically varying amine head groups and hydrophobic tails. Through in vivo testing and structure–activity relationship analysis, they identified key features in the lipids that most effectively targeted the lung: a distinctive ‘tripod-like’ structure, consisting of a quaternary amine head, three long alkyl chains and a short fourth chain.

Compared to benchmark formulations, the best-performing LuT-containing LNPs achieved up to a 25.5-fold increase in mRNA delivery and a 9.2-fold improvement in gene-editing efficiency, with >90% of delivery localized to the lungs. These LuT-LNPs successfully transfected multiple lung cell types, including endothelial, epithelial and immune cells, with some formulations showing preferences for specific cell populations.

Mechanistically, the improved performance was attributable to two main factors. First, the tripod-like structure of lipids promoted endosomal escape by facilitating membrane fusion and LNP disassembly, allowing efficient release of genetic cargo into cells. Second, LuT LNPs formed distinct protein coronas in the bloodstream, particularly enriching for vitronectin, a protein that enhances targeting to lung cells via receptor-mediated uptake.

Siegwart and his team went on to show the therapeutic potential of LuT LNPs. The lead formulation, 1A7B13, enabled effective delivery of IL-10 mRNA in a mouse model of acute lung injury and achieved robust CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing in lung tissue. The LNPs showed minimal toxicity and no significant adverse effects in vivo.

This research establishes clear design principles for lung-targeting LNPs and markedly expands the available toolkit for pulmonary gene delivery. It is just the beginning of the translational path, however.

The Siegwart LuT-LNPs must home through the vasculature to the lungs after being delivered intravenously. This is very different from the aerosolized LNP delivery approaches of Recode and Arcturus currently in clinical testing. There may be a case to be made that some pulmonary vascular disease, lung endothelial targets, lung fibrosis, immune-cell or vascular-compartment targets might warrant the intravenous route, but aerosolized LNP delivery provides lower systemic exposure (and thus higher therapeutic index), is more patient-friendly, and rapidly/directly reaches the airway lumen.

Regardless of the route of administration, the translational challenges associated with targeting the lung remain very difficult. In terms of testing formulations in different models, anatomical differences between mouse, ferret and human airways, including physiological size and branching complexity, impact LNP design and aerosol physics.The formulations used for mice may simply not work for people because of differences in cell composition, and lung epithelial and endothelial membranes and “surfaceomes”. As humans age and develop disease, cell protein and lipid composition may also change, requiring further optimization of LNP formulations. Mice have more narrow airways and faster breathing rates than humans, requiring smaller diameter aerosol droplets (often <2 µm) to ensure particles bypass the upper respiratory tract and reach the alveolar regions.

Moreover, humans have ~23 branches in their airways, whereas mice have only 13, meaning an aerosol optimized for a ‘deep’ reach in a mouse might only reach mid-level bronchi in a human. Furthermore, ferrets are not a widely available model system to study the biodistribution and efficacy of LNPs. Indeed, there are just a few labs in the United States that upkeep ferret colonies.

Last, a human lung’s surface area (~70 m²) is nearly 8.500 times larger than a mouse’s (~82 cm²), and human tidal volume is roughly 6,000 times greater. This requires significant dose scaling and affects how ‘diluted’ the LNPs become once they deposit.

Designing in vitro and in vivo systems representative of human biology and capable of predicting LNP biodistribution is also a tall order (especially with such a small cadre of companies working on the problem). For small molecules, the measurement of efficacy in human basal epithelium-derived patient cells carrying a mutation of interest by and large will translate into what you see in the clinic. The pharmaceutical industry has amassed a lot of data to bolster pharmacology.

Unfortunately, that correlation doesn’t necessarily hold for genetic modalities like mRNA or CRISPR/Cas9 constructs. For these medicines, it is very hard to figure out PK/PD. And so, the translation from preclinical work to the clinic can be tricky for an inhaled LNP technology delivering mRNA. It is difficult to really know the degree of protein expression from an inhaled LNP genetic medicine intracellularly without doing a bronchial biopsy (which is of course highly intrusive). And if you need to test your LNP in patients via biopsy, clinicians historically have been very resistant to carrying out such procedures, particularly in very sick patients like some of people with cystic fibrosis who carry nonsense mutations in CFTR. Thus, there is a need for alternative approaches. Certainly, there is an opportunity for more work on organoids or simpler patient cell-derived assays: 2D or 3D alternatives to large animal models like the ferret.

What is clear is that there are enough patients worldwide living with lung disease that further research in this area needs to be encouraged. In this respect, the findings from Siegwart’s group are a step in the right direction, with broad implications for treating lung diseases by enabling safer and more precise delivery of RNA-based therapeutics and genome-editing technologies.

The Quest for the Perfect Investor Fit: How Much Does Life Science Expertise Matter?

2 Oct

By Danielle Silva, Business Development, LSN

Here at LSN, I speak with many life science entrepreneurs about investor fit. Typically, life science executives believe that fit is a one-way street, meaning that they need to do all they can to prove they are a fit for a prospective investor. While it is certainly true that an integral part of the fundraising process is proving that your company is a fit for the firm’s investment thesis, this is not a one-sided negotiation. It is just as important for life science companies to make sure a potential investor is a fit for what the firm is looking to attain, and therefore, finding a potential investor needs to be both a strategic and tactical play.

What many life science CEOs struggle with is whether they should favor investors that have expertise in a particular area versus investors that are experienced in a certain phase of development. The answer, by and large, depends on what the life science company is looking to achieve in the long run, but there is of course no easy answer to this dilemma. Many entrepreneurs consider the problem a simple one – why would you want an investor that doesn’t understand your technology, or one who does not have expertise in your particular indication area?

While it is certainly important for investors to have a basic understanding of your disease area, this is only truly important if you are seeking scientific advisors for your firm. If this is the case, then finding a partner that has expertise in your disease area may be favorable to finding an investor that has knowledge of your stage of development. But what if, conversely, the executive is seeking a quick exit or a recapitalization? In this case, it may be more attractive to find an investor with a laser focus on your particular area. These investors already have a great knowledge of the space and thus probably already have a solid network that will be willing to acquire the company once the firm hits certain milestones.

Most life science executives I speak with, however, are not seeking scientific advisors, and instead are seeking investors with the business acumen to help take their product from discovery to distribution. These companies would benefit from a relationship with an investor that has knowledge of their particular phase of development, and who can thereby help to scale their business. It is also very beneficial for companies to be partnered with investors who have a deep knowledge of their phase of the clinical development cycle. These investors will have the expertise to help life science firms partner with appropriate firms in the R&D services space (such as CROs and other service providers).

Again, there is no clear solution to this problem. If your company is seeking an investor with a deep network in the space, then choosing an investor with sector expertise may be the answer. These investors, however, may not be able to help you scale your business to the point where your firm is an attractive investment or acquisition target for a larger investor within their network. Simply put, the answer is convoluted, no investor is the same, and everyone brings something different to the table. Life science executives should clearly define their goals in terms of growth and exit before deciding on an investor based on sector fit versus development phase fit.

Creating a Dialogue with Life Science Investors

2 Oct

By Dennis Ford, CEO, LSN

I write about this subject often – I guess the main reason is that if I can get the message right, I can help educate life science fund-raisers that a current and accurate map does exist for raising capital. If you are in fundraising mode, please have an updated map. There, I said it!

The most interesting component of the fundraising dynamic is the concept of “introduction”. Scientist meets investor, buyer meets seller. One of the initial goals of any fundraising campaign is to get in front of potential investors, and this can be done in two general ways: the first being referral, and the second, fit. I will agree that a referral is often a good way to get a meeting, but many believe that it is the only way to get to a decent investor target.

Being a street-savy salesperson, I always get a bit riled when someone announces that referrals are the only way in. I mean, what if you get referred to an investor and he just simply doesn’t have a current mandate to invest, and if he did, it would be a medical device and you happen to be a therapeutic? My point here is that even though a referral may get you some preferential treatment in the form of a first meeting, there always needs to be a good fit. After all, it’s the final meeting that really counts. I am a big fan of the referral, but I am an even bigger fan of fit.

In my “sales guy mind,” the highest form of a qualified investor lead is a declared fit. A declared fit boils down to this: an investor actively declares a targeted and specific intent on investing in a certain part of the market. I think that is the highest form of investor target – self-declared mandate from the mouth of an potential investor. I mean, what else would a fundraiser want? OK, maybe I shouldn’t have asked that question… because I know the answer: a referred introduction, right?  No, wrong!

Of course, if you know someone who can provide an intro, that’s great. Sans that magical referral/intro, if you are a fit for the declared mandate, all you have to do is tell him via email or phone that you know what they are seeking and you are a fit. Honestly, that’s how it works. Spamming gets you a 1-2% hit rate, but reaching out based on fit gets you a 20-30% hit rate. Why? Because you match what the investor is looking for. Being armed with the knowledge of an investor’s current interest gives you the power to refer yourself.

Phase I of the JOBS Act: Are you ready for the general solicitation revolution?

2 Oct

By Lucy Parkinson, Research Analyst, LSN

Back in April 2012, the JOBS act was passed with the aim of (the clue is in the name) Jumping Our Business Startups. The SEC has moved slowly on implementing the JOBS Act and is saving the most innovative provisions for a second phase of changes, but as of Monday, September 23rd, the long-standing ban on making general solicitations to accredited investors has been rescinded. This will have a huge effect on the institutional landscape of investing, as companies can now use mass public advertising to look for investors, rather than being restricted to using funds from family, friends, and private networks of accredited investors.

So does your start-up’s fundraising campaign have to change? Not necessarily, but you may reap great benefits by using the new regulations to your advantage and seeking for investors with a wider net than was previously possible. However, obeying the restrictions surrounding general solicitation is not as straightforward as you might think. As such, any company looking to raise capital would be advised to spend some time with their lawyer before sending out a mass solicitation; similar to the domain of intellectual property, we could see an influx of law firms seeking to partner with emerging biotech companies to guide them through the regulatory quagmire and maximize their visibility with investors.

While many life science companies could benefit from following the new path laid out for general solicitations, some may wish to eschew the added regulatory burdens and stick with the old model that, in addition to accredited investors, allows them to ask up to 35 unaccredited friends and family to contribute to each funding round. This doesn’t mean foregoing all the benefits of the law; the investment groups themselves will have more room to advertise for contributions under the new law, and that may lead to investors having more dry powder to invest – particularly to under-the-radar angel firms, who have previously found it hard to advertise to prospective investors. Building partnerships with these lesser-known investors will remain as important than ever.

Will general solicitation be worth the added costs? It could be, and this is especially true for life science companies. One thing LSN has observed frequently about emerging types of investors in the life science space is that more so than investors in other industries, they often have personal motives. Essentially, what we’re seeing is funding provided by angels, family offices and venture philanthropy funds looking for more than just ROI – the founders of these investment vehicles often want to make an impact on the world by targeting a particular disease that has affected their life or runs in their family. So, when we start to see general solicitations blaring from every billboard, TV set or web search, life science pitches will have a unique draw that other startup prospects lack because in this industry, general and personal come together.

This distinction will only become more valuable when phase two of the JOBS Act rolls out equity crowdfunding. For that, we’ll have to wait until next year.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 1: Venture Philanthropy Seeks Early-Stage Companies for Several Allocations

2 Oct

A venture philanthropy group established in 2008 and based in the Eastern US makes equity and convertible note investments of approximately $1 million into companies seeking up to $5 million that are targeting cardiovascular and neurovascular diseases. The firm invests in privately held companies at both the seed and venture stage, and is planning on making 3-4 allocations over the next 12 months. The firm operates under an evergreen structure and is constantly seeking new investment opportunities.

The group is currently looking for companies in both the Biotech Therapeutic & Diagnostics and Medtech sectors. Within these sectors, the firm is opportunistic in terms of subsector, although they do have special interest in companies developing regenerative technologies. The firm’s main focus is on companies developing technologies for cardiovascular and neurovascular diseases – however, they will also consider investing in companies targeting diabetes and metabolic disorders. The firm looks to invest in companies with a product in preclinical or phase 1 of clinical trials for Biotech Therapeutics and Diagnostics, and companies with a product in development or prototype stages for Medtech.

As a venture philanthropy organization, the group is only willing to allocate to companies who have a clear impact on patient therapy and/or standard of care, an adequate level of IP protection, well-defined use of proceeds with quantifiable and achievable milestones, and a clear understanding of the next round of fundraising needs including how much and likely sources.

Hot Life Science Investor Mandate 2: PE/VC Hybrid has High AUM, Wide Range of Interests

2 Oct

A private equity / venture capital firm which was founded in 1994 and is based in the Western US manages a total of 7 funds with a combined AUM of $2 billion. The typical investment size is anywhere from $5 – $10 million initially, and up to $20 million over the lifetime of the investment. The firm provides both equity investments and convertible notes to companies located all over the globe. They plan to make 2-3 investments over the next 6-9 months.

The firm is interested in companies in biotech therapeutics & diagnostics, medtech, and biotech R&D services. They are also interested in other organizations in the biotech space, such as agricultural biotechnology or industrial biotechnology. In terms of subsector and indication, the firm is entirely opportunistic; however, they are not interested in companies that do not have a viable proof-of-concept for their technology, and strongly prefer to invest in companies that have entered into clinical trials.

The group prefers to invest in experienced management teams, and generally provides a professional to serve on company’s board of directors, in addition to assisting with operational activities. The firm will consider all management teams on a case-by-case basis, and may consider rearranging the management team if necessary.