Gradalis Swiftly Moves ddRNAi-Enhanced Cancer Vaccine Candidate through Clinic

I’ve been reminded a number of times by the staunch Benitec-supporters here that Texas-based biotech company Gradalis has been moving a ddRNAi-enhanced cancer vaccine candidate (‘FANG’) aggressively through clinical development. Virtually out of nowhere, Gradalis initiated clinical trials two years ago and there are now two active phase II trials, one in ovarian cancer and one for advanced melanoma. A peer-reviewed publication on the phase I trial was also just published (Senzer et al.) arguably making FANG the lead RNAi candidate in oncology.

The phase I study involved over 40 patients with advanced solid tumors and demonstrated the safety and logistic feasibility of the approach. Although evidence of suggestive of efficacy was presented such as a clear correlation between an immune response and survival, it would be premature to conclude anything with regard to efficacy. Having now followed a number of cancer vaccines, most of which have eventually failed, it seems to me that correlations such as this could be just as well as a reflection of the fact that those with more responsive immune systems will do better anyway.

‘FANG’ comprises of plasmid DNA from which a single RNA polymerase II promoter drives the expression of an upstream GM-CSF open-reading-frame followed by a pair of downstream RNAi hairpins. This plasmid is introduced by electroporation in a petri dish into the patients’ own cancer cells which have been obtained from a tumor resection. After allowing some time for the expression of the transgenes, the cells are irradiated so as to kill off their proliferative potential and are then re-introduced like many other vaccines by intradermal injection.

The GM-CSF component, wildly popular in the cancer vaccine field and also part of Dendreon’s famous prostate cancer vaccine PROVENGE, is supposed to serve as an attractant, proliferation and maturation factor for dendritic cells which are supposed to ingest, present and thereby stimulate an immune response against the antigens unique to a tumor; the pair of ‘bifunctional’ hairpins meanwhile both target furin which is thought to be an important protease for the maturation of the various isoforms of TGF-beta, a well-known immunosuppressant often overexpressed in cancer.

‘Bifunctional’ here means that one hairpin is perfectly matched and therefore mostly relies on the so-called Ago2/cleavage-dependent mode of RISC activation, whereas the other hairpin contains a central bulge due to mismatching changes introduced in the passenger strand arm of the hairpin thus relying on the non-cleavage pathway of RISC activation which can be facilitated by all four human Argonautes (both predicted to yield the identical guide strand). This strategy of distributing the RNAi between the various Argonaute proteins is certainly an interesting idea, but I’m not sure whether even Gradalis knows what consequences of this is both in terms of efficacy and safety.

A general lack of detailed molecular mechanistic studies is probably my biggest concern with this candidate and when thinking about Gradalis in general. It also at least partly explains why FANG has been moving so rapidly through the clinic. I find it particularly troubling that I have seen no detailed studies by Gradalis looking at the relationship between furin knockdown and TGFbeta inhibition which is key for Gradalis' strategy. This already has caused difficulties in interpreting some of the phase I data where possible assay problems complicated reconciling apparently only modest reductions in furin with much more pronounced down-regulations of TGFbeta. This not only makes it more difficult to make the right development decisions, but also when it comes to finding a partner for the program. On the other hand, you could argue that a cancer vaccine candidate involving both GM-CSF expression and TGFbeta inhibition already has a good chance at succeeding, and sweating out the technical details would only cause delays without making us much the wiser.

As I had mentioned, the Benitec supporters are following Gradalis’ development with much interest as such an advanced ddRNAi candidate may be a prime licensing opportunity for Benitec which controls an important part of the ddRNAi patent landscape. I’ve certainly looked at the hairpin structures involved in light of Benitec’s patent claims (esp. the ‘099 Graham patents) and there is a good chance that Gradalis ought to take a license as it further monetizes this candidate, although their structures may give them a bit of wiggle room.

Mirna Therapeutics selects Marina Biotech’s SMARTICLE delivery tech

In another notable development last week, cancer microRNA Therapeutics company Mirna Therapeutics said that it would use Marina Bio’s SMARTICLE liposomal delivery technology for the development of microRNA replacement therapy for cancer. Based on conference presentations, the two companies had been collaborating on the delivery of microRNA mimics before announcing the deal. An attraction of the SMARTICLE delivery technology, which Marina had acquired from Novosom, is certainly the fact that there is already clinical experience after SMARTICLE-enabled ‘DNAi’ compound by ProNAi has begun dosing a year ago. Similar to related agreements between Mirna and Silence, and InteRNA and Silence, insightful details about the financials were not disclosed. For Marina, which have diluted shareholders by what seems like a 100-fold over the last 3 years (unreal, really), it is good news as its extensive technology offering is finally getting takers.

Marina Biotech Continues to Drive Sector Consolidation, Acquires Novosom’s Liposomal Delivery IP

Marina Biotech, formerly known as mdRNA, continues to snap up assets in the oligonucleotide therapeutics and diagnostics space, this time acquiring the liposomal delivery IP from Novosom, a privately held drug delivery company based in Germany. This comes only a week after shareholders approved mdRNA’s merger with tkRNAi company Cequent Pharmaceuticals to form Marina Biotech. It will be curious to see whether Marina’s strategy of challenging Alnylam's industry-leading position by taking advantage of the depressed market for oligonucleotide therapeutics will succeed in luring Big Pharma and pay off for shareholders. The investment this time: $5M in newly issued stock.

Similar to Silence Therapeutics, Marina acts on the premise that in order to capture those lucrative partnerships, being able to provide a choice of delivery technologies, plus some claims in RNAi triggers, too, is key. This, of course, is in contrast to Tekmira’s so far quite successful strategy of doing one thing very well, meaning clinically maturing and expanding the applicability of its industry-leading SNALP delivery technology and avoid some of the deal frenzy and dilution of effort.

By the looks of it, Novosom has to be considered one of the more bona fide delivery companies. Similar to Tekmira’s SNALP, Novosom’s SMARTICLES can change their surface electrical charge and therefore reconcile (serum and storage) stability with endosomal release functionality. Unlike SNALPs, however, these liposomes also contain anionic lipids, in addition to cationic and neutral lipids, and do not employ PEG stabilizers. This stability can be attributed to the negative charge of SMARTICLES at phyisiologic pH which ought to avoid various interactions with host factors and resulting toxicities often associated with positively charged lipids. However, as the pH acidifies upon endosomal uptake of these particles, they become positively charged and competent for membrane disruption and cytoplasmic release. For similar reasons, ionizable SNALPs as practiced by Tekmira not only employ PEGylation, but are also essentially uncharged at physiologic pH.

In terms of IP, from the looks of it, Novosom has assembled a respectable IP estate with various fairly broad patents granted also in the important US market. This should provide Marina with considerable options to leverage its other liposomal assets, trp-cage targeting technology and amino acid-derived lipids, that I have felt lacked robust patent protection when used in liposomal formulations similar in composition to Tekmira’s SNALPs.

Theory and IP, of course, are only part of the equation. In terms of actual data, the literature bears out the tolerability of these liposomes. In terms of in vivo knockdown efficacy, I haven’t really seen much for liposomal delivery of siRNA in the peer-reviewed literature. There was, however, a paper on the liposomal delivery of a CD40 antisense oligo (under license from ISIS) in a rodent inflammatory disease model and that supported specific CD40 knockdown and disease amelioration while the unformulated antisense oligo appeared to be inactive. In general, based on the literature and also Novosom’s website, their technology seems to be in the late rodent stage and yet to be validated in larger mammals including non-human primates and Man.

There should, however, be an open IND for the delivery of a DNAi compound (no mis-spelling) by PRONAI which makes use of Novosom’s technology. However, it appears that PRONAI’s funding situation may have delayed actual dosing.

Novosom also entered into at least 2 collaborations with RNAi companies. One with (now defunct) DNA-directed RNAi company Nucleonics for treating hepatitis viral infections, and one with Boehringer-Ingelheim for the validation of drug targets in the liver and lung. Again, because Novosom is a private company I can only speculate whether the lipids used by Nucleonics in their soon aborted phase I study stemmed from the Novosom collaboration. Similarly, the status of the Boehringer-Ingelheim collaboration is unclear to me. Who knows, but maybe Boehringer-Ingelheim is actively looking for (liposomal) delivery and triggers for the development of RNAi Therapeutics, which raises another point: although the press release did not specify this, but selling what looks like the entire IP estate would appear to be tantamount to selling the entire company, existing partnerships and programs included.

But back to the fundamental question: Consolidating into a one-stop-shop, almost an ‘anti-Alnylam’, a la Marina and Silence versus technological deep-dive a la Tekmira- which strategy will create more shareholder value? The next 3 months should provide for some of the answers.

Please let your voice be heard and vote on the right.

Impressions from the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Oligonucleotide Therapeutics Society: Day 2

The second day of the Meeting was filled with cutting-edge science related to RNAi drug development with emphasis on RNAi mechanism, delivery, and cytokine responses triggered by various nucleic acid classes.

Tuschl kicked off the day by presenting data on the systemic identification of Argonaute interaction partners (mostly published data) and a new approach towards identifying microRNA targets. In contrast to microRNA target identification algorithms which heavily rely on sequence conservation, Tuschl and colleagues identified RNAs pulled down in Argonaute immuno-precipitations and then sequencing. Validating the approach, these RNAs were enriched for sequences with seed targets of the most abundantly expressed microRNAs in the tested cell line (1.8x enrichment over random). He finally reported on small molecule screens aimed at identifying inhibitors of microRNA maturation, however, with less success. It appears to me that he should stick to his guns and work at inhibiting microRNAs and their precursors instead by nucleic acids, such as antagomirs, which have proven to be much more potent and specific inhibitors of microRNA activity.

Ingo Roehl (Roche Gmbh, former Alnylam Europe) gave a nice presentation on progress in the development of analytical chemistries to support DMPK/PD (Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics/dynamics) studies of RNAi Therapeutics. It was encouraging to see significant improvements that now allow siRNA and endogenous microRNA quantitations in the picomole-femtomole range in biological samples at high-throughput. In contrast to methods used by other groups, their coupled HPLC mass-spec setup allows for the discrimination between intact siRNAs and their degradation products. However, further improvements in sensitivity are desired as the potency of siRNAs means that biological activity can be observed long after siRNA levels drop below the level of quantitation.

Peter Linsley from Rosetta Inpharmatics (a subsidiary of Merck), which gained early “notoriety” for being the first group to point out the problem of off-targeting by siRNAs some years ago, highlighted the dilemma posed by the fact that the off-target signature of a given siRNA is extremely different in mouse and man. This means that mice will not function as a safety model for off-target toxicity studies. Furthermore, by limiting oneself to cross-species specific siRNAs for the sake confirming the treatment in the animal model, many siRNAs with better potencies and off-targeting signatures in humans may ultimately be missed. Also of interest is the fact that by leveraging its genomic expression profiling capabilities, Rosetta Inpharmatics has now established microRNA overexpression signatures for over 150 microRNAs, raising the question when Merck will officially announce its entry into the microRNA therapeutics arena.

Following on from his identification of SID-1 in being required for systemic RNAi in worms by acting as an siRNA channel, Craig Hunter (Harvard University) presented data to support a model in which siRNAs enter and exit cells via SID-1 by diffusion, whereas other proteins such as SID-2 are involved in binding RNAs so as to increase their concentration close to the siRNA channel. That this is relevant for the development of RNAi therapeutics is highlighted by the recent Nature Biotech paper by Dr. Stoffel from the ETH Zurich and Alnylam where data suggested a role for SID-1 in taking up siRNAs following docking of siRNA-studded lipoprotein particles to their cellular receptors. In addition to walking his audience the published data-heavy paper, Stoffel stated that he saw no reason why it should not be possible to create artificial lipoprotein particles containing siRNAs and targeting agents.

Instead of Dinah Sah or David Bumcrot presenting Alnylam’s progress on cancer RNAi therapeutics, Rachel Myers stood in to give a general overview of the approach Alnylam takes to RNAi-based drug development. Since little new primary data was presented, I thought it is noteworthy that both Ingo Roehl and Myers gave scientific credit for the development of the hotly contested SNALP development to Protiva Biotherapeutics and that the delivery technology used in last week's Nature paper on microRNA competition by siRNAs was called "Alnylam proprietary”. Also, it was a great relief for me to hear that Alnylam had reproduced all of Sailen Barik’s data on the RSV-RNAi treatment paradigm, including efficacy of siRNAs after RSV infection. Indeed, siRNAs reduce viral titers up to 3 days after infection in a mouse model where maximal viral burden is seen by day 4 of the infection. Moreover, illustrating that the upcoming proof-of-concept studies for RSV in the experimental infection model is not merely an academic RNAi therapeutics de-risking exercise, the patients that Alnylam expects to treat with ALN-RSV01 will have infection in the upper respiratory tract with little or no exposure in the lung. Consequently, ALN-RSV01 will be a combination of treating upper respiratory tract infection and prophylaxis for the lung. Everybody, of course, is quite restless now to learn about the outcome of the phase II experimental infection results which appear to be on track and from which will be presented in detail early next year without precluding a PR on the results in December.

Before the session on RNAi/oligonucleotide delivery, a number of speakers spoke about recent findings on the immunogenic properties of various forms of RNAs, including siRNAs. The importance of considering the expression pattern of the main oligonucleotide receptors (the endosomal TLR-3,7,8,9 and the cytosolic RIG-I and MDA-5), their localization, and their exact ligands became evident and will inform modification strategies aimed at avoiding the induction of unwanted cytokine responses following siRNA administration which is something that Rachel Myers noted Alnylam is still trying to get a better handle on (see the delay in the pandemic flu program). Other groups, however, such as Gunther Hartmann’s group from Bonn, embrace the immunogenic properties of some, particularly unmodified siRNAs and would like to combine it with their silencing activity for treating cancer and viral infections. Some encouraging data in that regard were presented.

Song Li (Pittsburgh) presented the use of neutral lipids for delivering a variety of oligonucleotides to the pulmonary circulation. Like others at the meeting, this approach illustrates a trend away from using cationic liposomes which have been associated with interacting with components of the blood and may trigger certain toxicities. Delivery to endothelial cells of larger vessels and capillaries was particularly efficient, and his group is currently collaborating with ISIS on targeting endothelin-1 for treating hypertension. Encouragingly, he was able to report on good gene knockdowns and quite impressive in vivo efficacy data, such as the reduction of hypoxia-induced right ventricular hypertrophy.

Similarly impressive in vivo efficacy data were then reported by Klaus Giese from Silence Therapeutics, mostly located in the host city of Berlin. Without showing all the controls, tumor burden, metastasis, cell proliferation were all strongly reduced following systemic delivery of siRNAs in a number of mouse tumor models. Although I cannot agree with his repeated claims on the uniqueness of their Atu-siRNAi design and related IP claims, the Atuplex delivery technology certainly deserves more credit. Unlike other lipid-based delivery methods, siRNAs here associate with the liposomes externally thus allowing liposomal charge to be modulated from cationic, via neutral, to anionic. Of practical importance, these particles can be lyophylised for storage and shipping and then resuspended without loss of silencing activity. Progress has also been made on lung delivery and a number of pre-clinical programs are being pushed forward into the clinic.

The founder and CEO of the nucleic acid delivery company Novosom, Steffen Panzner, continued the string of impressive in vivo efficacy data in a mouse model of RA (inflammation of the paws) following delivery of their proprietary siRNA-loaded Smarticles, a charge-reversible liposomal delivery technology. One problem of using the more desirable, in terms of safety, neutral and anionic lipids, is their reduced siRNA binding affinity. Novosome’s amphoteric liposomes circumvent this problem by binding siRNAs at low pHs, at which point they are positively charged, and rapidly shifting them to higher pHs for closing the liposomes. During this process, most of externally bound siRNAs are shaved off, with the additional benefit of consequently minimising endosomal exposure of the siRNAs which may trigger TLR7-mediated cytokine responses.

The scientific day was closed by a talk from Alan Sachs of Merck who set out to emphasise that despite a dearth of recent information on Sirna’s/Merck’s preclinical and clinical RNAi therapeutics pipeline, that they were more than ever committed at developing RNAi therapeutics. Unfortunately, this was not followed by a presentation of primary scientific data and specific examples, but rather how Merck thinks about RNAi drug development in general and repeated appeals of please partnering with Merck, particularly in the area of targeted siRNA delivery. It appears to me that Merck would like to rival Alnylam in accessing the best minds in the RNAi drug delivery field and is offering to send out their siRNAs for free so that others can formulate them and report back on their findings without any strings attached as to the use of these results. Sachs feels that Merck, through their expertise on the genomics and genetics of gene expression through Rosetta Inpharmatics, that it knows best which targets are most suitable to go after for drug development. Since siRNAs allow essentially any gene to be targeted, he like other feels that this is the natural drug development platform to be harnessed and thinks about 21 month development timelines from gene identification to preclinical proof-of-concept given the availability of suitable biomarkers. While searching for more targeted delivery solutions and collaborators, Merck is meanwhile establishing a platform for siRNA delivery to the liver and, encouraged by ISIS' 301012 results, is clearly motivated in targeting ApoB100 with siRNAs for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. I would not be surprised at all, to see them join the PCSK9 frenzy as well. Being second in a $50-60B should not be that bad.
,