- Anonymous said...
any thoughts on the Silence annoucnement with AZ.Just a bit of smoke?
- January 7, 2012 4:10 AM
- Dirk Haussecker said...
A little bit of smoke, but not all. It seems that AZ is still in the RNAi game. Also, the AZ guy on the PR is going to attend the Keystone conference. Seems to have a background in vascular endothelial biology (see AtuPLEX, DACC).
- January 7, 2012 7:23 AM
- Anonymous said...
Dirk... you've been pretty quite on the latest Tekmira/Talon and Alnylam developments...
-Value your thoughts?- January 13, 2012 2:17 PM
- Dirk Haussecker said...
I'll be back. Just trying to get as much as possible out of the Keystone meeting.
RE Talon: I have not delved yet into Talon's chances of getting approval for Marqibo. Still, it seems a tall order since the submission appears to be based on open-label, uncontrolled phase II results. I'm therefore hopeful that Talon, and their re-newed investors, know what they are doing. An approval though would be a nice upside surprise to Tekmira.- January 14, 2012 2:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
"I'll be back"
The Hausse is coming to silence the Terminator for good.- January 14, 2012 7:34 PM
- Anonymous said...
" It is clear that from a scientific perspective, oligonucleotide, including RNAi Therapeutics are feasible."
Wow, that does not sound very optimistic about RNAi, and differs considerably in tone from your numerous bullish articles about the future of RNAi. What the hell happened at the meeting to make you gear down your outlook?- January 16, 2012 8:31 PM
- Anonymous said...
Dirk,
Can you comment on the basis for the ALNY patent infrigement suit?- January 17, 2012 9:17 AM
- Dirk Haussecker said...
Over 3 years after Tekmira and BMS have openly been collaborating on SNALP delivery, Alnylam now interprets Tekmira's target validation deal with BMS as an infringing activity under the exclusive license of certain SNALP IP to Alnylam (you can forget about the cited ISIS patent as that one is of little relevance to RNAi, so it was thrown into the fray anyway). Of course, if you want to find a reason to sue somebody, you find them, and this looks like one of these gray areas. Tekmira may now cite the Research Exemption, that it was free to conduct such work under its target picks, and/or that the actual formulations used in that deal (to which Alnylam will not be privvy) did not have much to do with the cited patents.
But whatever, I believe Alnylam's motivation in this suit is quite obvious and that's what today was about.- January 17, 2012 3:28 PM
- Giles said...
Any thoughts on the RaNa Atlas investment?Is it presaging new monies into RNAi?
- January 18, 2012 11:10 AM
- Anonymous said...
Dirk
Read the report. Very informative, even to a lay person like me. Thanks much.
Have some questions, and let me know if they're something you prefer to answer by email rather than on your blog site.
Questions regarding the discussion in your report about Tekmira/Alnylam's reference to 1st gen, 2d gen (MC3), and Tekmira's 3d gen LNP. Regarding the latter, were there any more specifics on how it differs, other than dose concentration for efficacy, from MC3? Were there any reactions, questions, or response from Alnylam or other participants on this "3d generation" LNP from Tekmira? Did Ian indicate that further clinical testing of TKM-PLK1 would use either MC3 or the 3d generation lipid?
Shame Madden had to "depart" prematurely due to some news from British Columbia (ha! timing of the court order was great).
Thanks for any information you can share on those issues.- January 21, 2012 12:58 PM
- Dirk Haussecker said...
The PLK1 question is one that I was asking myself. I really like PLK1 as a target, and also the PLK1 SNALP formulation should be superior to ALN-VSP02 due to its longer predicted circulatory half-life. On the other hand, it does seem that just like 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen for SNALP liver delivery, Tekmira has made progress in solid tumor delivery that may be significant enough to follow up on the first PLK1 candidate. It would be a tough decision though, and possibly should be done with a larger partner. Ironically, it might be easier to sell such a decision to investor if they get positive TKM-PLK1 data first. The next few weeks could be interesting in that regard.
- January 22, 2012 1:22 PM
- Anonymous said...
What is your view on the Roche bid for illumina?
- January 26, 2012 6:47 PM
- Dirk Haussecker said...
I see the Roche bid for ILMN very positive for RNAi Therapeutics. After all, RNAi is ideally suited for personalized medicine as it works on the genetic level (ILMN sequences genomes). Furthermore, as in 15-20 years essentially everybody will have their genomes sequenced (and cancer patients their cancers, too), it will be quite easy for example for Alnylam find the people which are about to develop TTR amyloidosis, Huntingtons's Disease, and Tekmira those cancer patients which are expected to respond to PLK1 treatment best.
- January 27, 2012 1:20 AM
- Dirk Haussecker said...
Madden was not only missing at his poster, but apparently also on the MC3 US patent that is about to issue.
- January 30, 2012 5:24 AM
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The Keystone Nucleic Acid Therapeutics Meeting Report
This offer expired. For the record, the comments section of this blog entry is posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I would like to sign up for your report on the Keystone meeting but I was unable to locate the ordering information on your gmail. Please ck. and advise.
Just send me an email and I will answer your questions. My gmail address is:
dirk dot haussecker AT gmail dot com
(no spaces)
any thoughts on the Silence annoucnement with AZ.Just a bit of smoke?
A little bit of smoke, but not all. It seems that AZ is still in the RNAi game. Also, the AZ guy on the PR is going to attend the Keystone conference. Seems to have a background in vascular endothelial biology (see AtuPLEX, DACC).
Dirk... you've been pretty quite on the latest Tekmira/Talon and Alnylam developments...
-Value your thoughts?
I'll be back. Just trying to get as much as possible out of the Keystone meeting.
RE Talon: I have not delved yet into Talon's chances of getting approval for Marqibo. Still, it seems a tall order since the submission appears to be based on open-label, uncontrolled phase II results. I'm therefore hopeful that Talon, and their re-newed investors, know what they are doing. An approval though would be a nice upside surprise to Tekmira.
"I'll be back"
The Hausse is coming to silence the Terminator for good.
" It is clear that from a scientific perspective, oligonucleotide, including RNAi Therapeutics are feasible."
Wow, that does not sound very optimistic about RNAi, and differs considerably in tone from your numerous bullish articles about the future of RNAi. What the hell happened at the meeting to make you gear down your outlook?
Dirk,
Can you comment on the basis for the ALNY patent infrigement suit?
Over 3 years after Tekmira and BMS have openly been collaborating on SNALP delivery, Alnylam now interprets Tekmira's target validation deal with BMS as an infringing activity under the exclusive license of certain SNALP IP to Alnylam (you can forget about the cited ISIS patent as that one is of little relevance to RNAi, so it was thrown into the fray anyway). Of course, if you want to find a reason to sue somebody, you find them, and this looks like one of these gray areas. Tekmira may now cite the Research Exemption, that it was free to conduct such work under its target picks, and/or that the actual formulations used in that deal (to which Alnylam will not be privvy) did not have much to do with the cited patents.
But whatever, I believe Alnylam's motivation in this suit is quite obvious and that's what today was about.
Any thoughts on the RaNa Atlas investment?Is it presaging new monies into RNAi?
Dirk
Read the report. Very informative, even to a lay person like me. Thanks much.
Have some questions, and let me know if they're something you prefer to answer by email rather than on your blog site.
Questions regarding the discussion in your report about Tekmira/Alnylam's reference to 1st gen, 2d gen (MC3), and Tekmira's 3d gen LNP. Regarding the latter, were there any more specifics on how it differs, other than dose concentration for efficacy, from MC3? Were there any reactions, questions, or response from Alnylam or other participants on this "3d generation" LNP from Tekmira? Did Ian indicate that further clinical testing of TKM-PLK1 would use either MC3 or the 3d generation lipid?
Shame Madden had to "depart" prematurely due to some news from British Columbia (ha! timing of the court order was great).
Thanks for any information you can share on those issues.
The PLK1 question is one that I was asking myself. I really like PLK1 as a target, and also the PLK1 SNALP formulation should be superior to ALN-VSP02 due to its longer predicted circulatory half-life. On the other hand, it does seem that just like 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen for SNALP liver delivery, Tekmira has made progress in solid tumor delivery that may be significant enough to follow up on the first PLK1 candidate. It would be a tough decision though, and possibly should be done with a larger partner. Ironically, it might be easier to sell such a decision to investor if they get positive TKM-PLK1 data first. The next few weeks could be interesting in that regard.
What is your view on the Roche bid for illumina?
I see the Roche bid for ILMN very positive for RNAi Therapeutics. After all, RNAi is ideally suited for personalized medicine as it works on the genetic level (ILMN sequences genomes). Furthermore, as in 15-20 years essentially everybody will have their genomes sequenced (and cancer patients their cancers, too), it will be quite easy for example for Alnylam find the people which are about to develop TTR amyloidosis, Huntingtons's Disease, and Tekmira those cancer patients which are expected to respond to PLK1 treatment best.
Madden was not only missing at his poster, but apparently also on the MC3 US patent that is about to issue.
Post a Comment