Tag Archives: science

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).

Innovator’s Pitch Challenge: Where Deals Start

19 May

By Max Braht, VP of Business Development, LSN

Max-Braht-Headshot

At most conferences, startup pitch competitions are treated as side programming. Founders present a deck, judges select winners, applause follows, and the event moves on.

At RESI San Diego, the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge (IPC) is designed differently.

The IPC is not simply about winning a competition. It is designed to help early-stage life science companies generate investor attention, create business development momentum, and accelerate conversations that continue long after the presentation ends.

For many companies, that interaction becomes the most valuable part of the experience.

“The discussions also felt far more relationship-driven than transactional,” said Sian Farrell, CEO of StimOxyGen. “Conversations extended beyond the pitch itself and focused on clinical strategy, regulatory pathways, commercialization, and long-term value creation.”

Unlike standalone pitch competitions, the IPC is integrated directly into the larger RESI partnering ecosystem. Participating companies also receive partnering access, poster presentation visibility, and exposure throughout the conference environment, creating multiple opportunities for follow-up interaction.

“The combination of the presentation and the partnering platform made a significant difference,” said Bram de Moor, CEO of You2Yourself. “RESI brought us into direct contact with European and transatlantic life science investors who specifically seek early-stage diagnostic and biomarker companies — an audience difficult to reach through cold outreach.”

The IPC also introduces an interactive audience component through “RESI cash,” distributed to attendees during registration. Participants allocate their RESI cash to the companies they believe demonstrate the strongest potential, creating additional visibility and engagement throughout the event.

For founders navigating today’s capital environment, opportunities that combine exposure with concentrated investor access are increasingly valuable.

As fundraising conditions continue to demand stronger differentiation and clearer commercialization pathways, platforms that help companies sharpen messaging and generate high-quality investor interaction have become increasingly important.

At RESI, the IPC is intended to serve exactly that purpose.

Selected companies receive:

  • Two 5-day RESI registrations
  • A six-minute company presentation followed by seven minutes of investor Q&A
  • Poster presentation space
  • Full partnering access
  • Exposure to investors, strategic partners, and pharma business development teams throughout Convention Week

For many founders, the IPC becomes more than a presentation opportunity. It becomes the place where investor conversations begin, strategic relationships form, and fundraising momentum accelerates.

Applications for the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge at RESI San Diego are currently open, with limited presentation slots remaining.

Apply to Pitch at RESI San Diego

StimOxyGen on Advancing SGEN-33 Following First Place Win at RESI Europe 

12 May

After securing 1st Place in the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge at RESI Europe, StimOxyGen is gaining momentum as it advances its lead program, SGEN-33, toward clinical development. In this interview, Sian Farrell discusses the science behind the platform, upcoming milestones, and how the RESI experience has accelerated investor engagement.

Sian Farrell
CEO, StimOxyGen
Caitlin Dolegowski
Program Director, LSN

Caitlin Dolegowski (CD): For those new to StimOxyGen, how would you describe SGEN-33 and the problem it is solving in a way that resonates with investors?

Sian Farrell (SF): SGEN-33 is a pH-responsive, oxygen-generating nanoparticle designed to overcome tumour hypoxia, one of the biggest barriers limiting the effectiveness of radiotherapy and other cancer treatments. Many aggressive solid tumours, particularly pancreatic cancer, are severely oxygen deprived, making them highly resistant to therapy. SGEN-33 selectively activates within the acidic tumour microenvironment, releasing oxygen directly where it is needed to help re-sensitise tumours to treatment. What makes the opportunity particularly compelling is that we are addressing a fundamental biological resistance mechanism that impacts multiple high-value oncology indications. Rather than replacing existing therapies, SGEN-33 is designed to enhance them, positioning StimOxyGen within the growing combination of therapy landscape.

CD: What makes this approach particularly compelling from a commercial and clinical perspective compared to existing strategies?

SF: Clinically, our approach is differentiated because SGEN-33 generates oxygen directly within the tumour microenvironment rather than relying on systemic oxygen delivery methods, which have historically shown limited success. Existing hypoxia-targeting strategies such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy or intratumoural injections face significant limitations in practicality, scalability, or clinical adoption. In contrast, SGEN-33 is designed for intravenous administration and tumour-selective activation, offering a scalable and clinically feasible solution. Commercially, we believe this creates a highly attractive platform opportunity. Radiotherapy is used in approximately 60% of cancer patients worldwide, yet hypoxia remains a major unresolved challenge. By integrating into existing standards of care, SGEN-33 has the potential to enhance multiple treatment modalities across several solid tumour types without requiring clinicians to completely change current workflows. Importantly, we have already demonstrated strong preclinical efficacy and safety data in highly hypoxic tumour models, including pancreatic cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and aggressive prostate cancer. Our studies have shown significant tumour growth reduction and survival benefit when SGEN-33 is combined with radiotherapy.

CD: What key milestones or inflection points should investors be watching as you move toward clinical development?

SF: The next 18–24 months represent a highly important period for StimOxyGen as we advance SGEN-33 toward clinical development. Our current focus is on completing key IND-enabling activities, including GLP toxicology and DMPK studies, GMP manufacturing scale-up, FDA regulatory engagement, and expansion of our radiotherapy-immunotherapy datasets. Alongside these milestones, we are progressing collaborations with leading translational oncology centres including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), advancing early clinical strategy and trial design activities, and continuing to strengthen our scientific and clinical advisory network. A particularly exciting area is the growing evidence of immune-mediated effects observed in our preclinical studies, which may create future opportunities in combination with immunotherapy approaches.

CD: What are your current fundraising priorities, and what types of investors or partners are you looking to engage at this stage?

SF: We are currently raising $7.5 million to advance SGEN-33 through IND-enabling development and position the programme for First-in-Human clinical studies, with a target close by Q1 2027. The financing will support key value-creation milestones including GLP toxicology, DMPK studies, GMP manufacturing scale-up, FDA regulatory engagement, and continued expansion of our radiotherapy-immunotherapy datasets. In parallel, we are progressing clinical strategy and early trial design activities through collaborations with leading translational oncology centres, including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). We are particularly interested in engaging with specialist life science investors, oncology-focused funds, and strategic partners with expertise in radiotherapy, immuno-oncology, nanomedicine, and translational drug development.

CD: How did participating in RESI Europe and the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge impact your visibility and conversations with investors?

SF: Participating in RESI Europe was hugely valuable for StimOxyGen from both a networking and visibility perspective. Having the conference based in Lisbon created an important opportunity to expand beyond the UK ecosystem and connect more directly with the broader European life science investment community. It allowed us to significantly grow our investor network and establish new relationships with international investors and strategic partners. Winning 1st Place in the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge increased our visibility and credibility within the global biotech community and created strong momentum in investor conversations. An additional benefit is the opportunity to attend future RESI conferences, including events in the United States, which will help us continue expanding our US investor and strategic partner network as we move toward clinical development. Beyond the exposure itself, the experience also provided a significant confidence boost for our team and reinforced that the work we are doing is resonating internationally.

CD: What stood out most about the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge experience compared to other pitch opportunities?

SF: What stood out most was the quality and relevance of the audience. I’ve participated in pitch competitions previously, but many were more sector-agnostic and included a broad mix of industries and technologies. At RESI, it was particularly meaningful to receive recognition in a highly relevant and competitive life sciences environment, surrounded by innovative biotech and healthcare companies tackling major clinical challenges. The discussions also felt far more relationship-driven than transactional. Conversations extended beyond the pitch itself and focused on clinical strategy, regulatory pathways, commercialization, and long-term value creation. Importantly, the support from the Life Science Nation (LSN) team did not feel like a “one-and-done” experience. The ongoing opportunities through future RESI events and the wider LSN network create continued momentum and provide a strong platform for us to further expand our international investor and strategic partner network moving forward.

CD: Following your win, what are the next key priorities for StimOxyGen as you move into your next phase of growth?

SF: Our biggest priority is maintaining the momentum we have built over the past 18 months as we advance SGEN-33 toward clinical development. Since completing our first VC financing round in January 2025, we have continued to de-risk the technology, expand our international investor network, progress collaborations with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), and strengthen our translational and regulatory strategy. Winning the RESI Europe Innovator’s Pitch Challenge was another important milestone that reinforced the growing momentum around the company. Over the next phase of growth, our focus is on advancing SGEN-33 through IND-enabling development, progressing FDA engagement, scaling manufacturing capabilities, and continuing to strengthen our clinical strategy. Of course, securing the capital required to move the programme into the clinic remains a critical priority. We believe StimOxyGen is at a genuinely exciting inflection point, and we are actively looking to partner with investors who share both our ambition and our sense of urgency. At the heart of everything we do is the patient. We are working on therapies for people facing some of the most difficult-to-treat cancers, where treatment options are limited and outcomes remain devastatingly poor. That reality keeps our team focused every day and drives our determination to move as quickly and responsibly as possible toward the clinic. For us, this is about far more than building a company — it is about giving patients and families hope where too often there currently is very little. And, if our story resonates with you, we would love to continue the conversation.

Additional Innovator’s Pitch Challenge (IPC) slots are now available, giving companies the opportunity to pitch directly to investors, receive live feedback, and boost visibility ahead of the event. Applications close May 22.

Apply to Pitch at RESI San Diego

From Story to Outcome: Exit Risk 

12 May

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

As part of Life Science Nation’s series on converting scientific innovation into investable signal, the final layer of the De-Risk Stack addresses exit risk. (Explore the full series here) After market, technical, regulatory, execution, economic, and financing risks are reduced, the final question becomes clear: how does this become a return?

Exit Risk

From Story to Outcome

At the top of the stack is the question every investor ultimately asks: how does this become a return?

Exit risk is not about predicting a specific transaction. It is about defining a realistic, evidence-based path to liquidity. Without that, even well-executed companies remain difficult to fund across multiple rounds.

This begins with clarity on the most likely exit path, acquisition, licensing, or public markets, aligned with the type of company you are building and the norms of your sector.

From there, you must be able to name a credible buyer universe: specific pharmaceutical, biotechnology, device, or platform companies for whom your asset would represent strategic value. Strategic fit explains why those buyers should care, how your product fills a pipeline gap, extends an existing franchise, enables a new modality, or provides differentiated access to a market.

Timing and value inflection points determine when the asset becomes relevant to those buyers. Clinical data, regulatory milestones, partnership signals, and early commercial traction all influence when interest peaks.

Competitive positioning answers why your asset would be selected over alternatives. Deal structure reality grounds expectations in how transactions are done in your space, including licensing terms, milestones, royalties, and acquisition patterns.

Finally, return potential must align with the expectations of the capital investing in the company. A good company is not always a good investment. The scale and timing of the likely outcome must match the risk and capital required to get there.

Exit risk is resolved when the company presents a credible path from development to liquidity, with clear buyers, clear triggers, and realistic structures.

Core Elements of Exit Risk

  • Exit path clarity
  • Buyer universe
  • Strategic fit
  • Timing
  • Value inflection points
  • Competitive positioning
  • Deal structure reality
  • Return potential

Sequence and Progression

These risks do not resolve independently. The order in which they are addressed determines outcome.

Market clarity precedes technical validation. Technical validation precedes regulatory definition. Regulatory definition precedes scaled execution. Execution enables economic validation. Economic validation supports structured financing. Financing makes an eventual exit possible.

When this sequence is followed, uncertainty is reduced efficiently and value compounds. When it is not, capital is consumed without progress and even strong assets can stall.

From Risk to Signal

The purpose of de-risking is to generate signal.

Investors do not fund ideas; they fund signal, coherent, cross-validated evidence that enough uncertainty has been removed to justify action. Each layer of the stack produces a different class of signal: market signal, technical signal, regulatory signal, execution signal, economic signal, financing signal, exit signal. As these accumulate and align, an opportunity becomes not just understandable, but investable.

Fundraising, in this view, is not persuasion. It is the systematic production and communication of signal.

Implications

For founders, progress is defined by the reduction of uncertainty, not by the volume of activity or the length of the roadmap.

For investors, the De-Risk Stack provides a structured framework for evaluation, what is resolved, what remains unresolved, and what must be proven next.

For ecosystems, it highlights the missing infrastructure between innovation and capital: shared standards, de-risking platforms, and operating systems that help assets move through this process more reliably.

From Framework to System

The De-Risk Stack defines how life science companies become investable. Implementation defines how that process is executed.

At the company level, this means shaping opportunities deliberately, targeting specific layers of risk, executing against clear milestones, and running structured fundraising campaigns.

At the ecosystem level, it means building infrastructure that can systematically identify, assess, and advance assets through the stack, so promising technologies do not stall for avoidable reasons.

When applied consistently, the De-Risk Stack becomes more than a framework. It becomes a system for converting scientific innovation into investable opportunity.

Closing

The challenge in life science is not discovery. It is the disciplined conversion of discovery into investable signal.

De-Risking, Signal, and Investability Series:

  1. The Problem Is Not the Science: A Seven-Part Series on De-Risking, Signal, and Investability
  2. Technical Risk – From Belief to Evidence
  3. From Proof to Approval: Regulatory Risk
  4. From Plan to Progress: Execution Risk
  5. From Progress to Viability: Economic Risk
  6. From Viability to Capital: Financing Risk
  7. From Story to Outcome: Exit Risk

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.

Oncovita: A Novel Measles-Based Approach to Unlock Immunotherapy in Solid Tumors 

5 May

By Rahul Shetty, Project Management & BD Associate, LSN

Max-Braht-HeadshotIn oncology, one of the most persistent challenges is not a lack of therapeutic innovation, but a fundamental biological limitation: many tumors remain invisible to the immune system. While immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitors have transformed treatment paradigms, a significant proportion of cancers, often referred to as “cold” tumors, fail to respond because they simply are not recognized as threats.

Oncovita, a France-based biotechnology company, is addressing this challenge with a novel approach rooted in engineered measles virotherapy. By leveraging the natural biology of the measles vaccine virus, the company aims to expose tumors to immune attack, effectively converting immunologically silent cancers into targets the body can detect and destroy.

This approach is particularly relevant in pleural mesothelioma, one of the deadliest solid tumors, where survival is often measured in months and treatment options remain extremely limited. Its immunologically silent nature makes it largely invisible to immune surveillance and resistant to existing immunotherapies, leaving patients with few effective options.

At the core of Oncovita’s platform is MVdeltaC, an engineered measles vaccine virus designed for intratumoral administration. Many tumors, including mesothelioma, overexpress CD46 – the receptor used by the measles virus to enter cells, providing a natural mechanism for selective targeting. Once inside the tumor, MVdeltaC triggers immunogenic tumor cell death and immune activation by releasing danger signals and tumor antigens, ultimately priming T cells to recognize and attack cancer. In doing so, it converts “cold” tumors into “hot” ones, enabling both local and systemic immune responses.

The use of measles vaccine as a therapeutic backbone offers several advantages. The live attenuated vaccine has been administered to more than four billion people worldwide, establishing a strong safety profile. It replicates in the cytoplasm without integrating into host DNA and is known to stimulate both innate and adaptive immunity, making it well suited for cancer immunotherapy.

Evidence supporting this approach includes a documented remission in a patient with triple-negative breast cancer treated with a measles-based therapy, along with preclinical data showing complete tumor regressions, long-term survival, and systemic immune activation across multiple aggressive tumor models. MVdeltaC has also demonstrated strong potential in combination with checkpoint inhibitors, further expanding its therapeutic relevance.

Oncovita is advancing MVdeltaC with an initial focus on pleural mesothelioma, supported by FDA & EMA Orphan Drug Designation and a clear regulatory pathway. From there, the company plans to expand into triple-negative breast cancer and additional solid tumors, using a stepwise strategy that builds early clinical validation before scaling into larger markets. This stepwise approach allows the company to generate early clinical proof-of-concept in a high-need population before expanding into broader oncology indications. With approximately 9,000 eligible patients annually across the U.S., Europe, and Japan in its initial indications and a significantly larger addressable market across solid tumors, the long-term opportunity is substantial.

Oncovita’s progress is supported by a multidisciplinary team with expertise spanning virology, immunotherapy, and clinical oncology. The company collaborates with leading institutions and key opinion leaders, including experts from Institut Gustave Roussy and MD Anderson Cancer Center, reinforcing the scientific and clinical foundation of its program.

As immunotherapy continues to evolve, enabling the immune system to recognize cancer may be just as important as enhancing its response. Oncovita’s measles-based virotherapy represents a compelling approach to solving this challenge, offering the potential to expand immunotherapy to patients who currently have limited treatment options.

Learn More & Connect

To learn more about Oncovita, visit: https://www.oncovita.fr/

To connect directly with CEO Stephane Altaba, reach out here: stephane.altaba@oncovita.fr

From Viability to Capital: Financing Risk 

5 May

By Dennis Ford, Founder & CEO, Life Science Nation (LSN)

DF-News-09142022

As part of Life Science Nation’s series on converting scientific innovation into investable signal, the focus now shifts to financing risk. After establishing market need, technical proof, regulatory clarity, execution capability, and economic viability, the next question becomes whether the company can actually secure the capital required to move forward.

Financing risk is where opportunity must become an investable campaign. It is not about whether capital exists, but whether a company can access it in a structured, disciplined way that aligns with how risk is being reduced, and whether the capital required to reach market is a financially viable prospect.

This article examines how companies define capital requirements, link funding to milestone-driven progress, align with the right investors, and build a credible fundraising strategy.

From syndicate formation to campaign execution and timing, this layer of the De-Risk Stack determines whether capital follows signal—or stalls in uncertainty.

Financing Risk

From Opportunity to Investable Campaign

Once a clear plan exists and economic logic is credible, the question becomes whether capital can be raised to support execution at each stage.

Financing risk is not about whether capital exists. There is significant capital available globally for life science. The real question is whether your company can access it in a disciplined and repeatable way that matches how risk is being reduced.

This starts with capital requirement clarity. You need to know how much capital is required to reach the next set of milestones, based on your actual operating plan, not a generic estimate. If milestones are unclear, capital requirements will be too.

Next is the linkage between capital and milestones. Every dollar raised should be tied to the removal of specific risks and the creation of specific signals. Investors are not funding time; they are funding progress.

Stage alignment and investor fit determine which capital you should pursue. Different investors specialize in different stages, risk profiles, and modalities. Misalignment here leads to wasted time and damaged narratives.

Most meaningful rounds require syndicate formation. That means identifying a plausible lead and realistic co-investors, and understanding their incentives and constraints.

Fundraising itself must be approached as a structured campaign, not a series of disconnected meetings. That includes building a sufficiently large and relevant investor universe, sequencing outreach, managing follow-up, and maintaining momentum over time.

Timing closes the loop. Capital must be raised when sufficient progress has been made to justify the next step, but before the company is under acute pressure. Raising too early or too late increases risk and narrows options. Additionally, accepting a bad deal can have a negative impact on future rounds, with potential investors backing out due to unfavorable terms.

Financing risk is resolved when capital follows the systematic reduction of risk—when each round is underpinned by new signal rather than hope.

Core Elements of Financing Risk

  • Capital requirement clarity
  • Linkage between capital and milestones
  • Stage alignment
  • Investor fit
  • Syndicate formation
  • Fundraising strategy
  • Campaign execution
  • Timing

Next in the series: Exit Risk — Defining the Path to Liquidity

Previous Articles:

  1. Technical Risk – From Belief to Evidence
  2. The Problem Is Not the Science: A Seven-Part Series on De-Risking, Signal, and Investability
  3. From Proof to Approval: Regulatory Risk
  4. From Plan to Progress: Execution Risk
  5. From Progress to Viability: Economic Risk