That Alnylam bets its future on GalNAc-siRNAs is remarkable and indicates that the company feels the technology is clinically viable. Accordingly, the preclinical animal data
leaves open the possibility that the required volume of an effective dose of
ALN-TTRsc, the first GalNAc-based clinical candidate, can be administered in a volume of 1ml or less, the stated goal of the company (results to be presented at HFSA, Sep22-25).
While I view ALN-TTRsc as a cliffhanger in terms of commercial
viability, not just because of the volume issue but also in light of the likely more effective SNALP option in the form of ALN-TTR02, the potency of GalNAc-based ALN-AT3 for hemophilia looks quite adequate.
Alnylam’s claim that a simple ligand-siRNA conjugate was
able to mediate gene silencing in vivo required
a rethinking of RNAi delivery by many since similar efforts involving especially aptamer-siRNA conjugates have been ‘viewed with skepticism’ to put it nicely.
Did Alnylam mislead the competition?
If you are a student and your funding body just spent $3000
to send you to a conference to learn about your subject, you might be forgiven if you came away with the
notion that simple siRNA-conjuates such as Alnylam’s GalNAc-siRNAs can be
effective (see e.g.
slide 16 of the presentation by John Maraganore at the OTS last year). The trick apparently
is that with a magic ligand-receptor pair such as GalNAc-ASGPR all you need is
to conjugate an RNAi trigger chemically modified for stability.
Of course, the imaginary student here is only collateral
damage as the real target audience of a presentation by Alnylam is its investors,
potential partners, and competition.
As such, it may not surprise that according to patent
application US2012/0136042A1, a simple GalNAc-siRNA conjugate has no activity on its own.
Instead, silencing activity critically
depends on the molecule also having a cholesterol (=lipophilic group) attached
to it. Since Alnylam had worked on such
cholesterol-siRNA conjugates before (
Soutschek et al. 2004), what now appears
to be the actual GalNAc-siRNA structure can be viewed as an evolution of the
cholesterol-siRNA which showed knockdown activity only at doses of 50mg/kg and higher.
DPCs by Arrowhead Research Take another Step
The 10-20 fold gains in potency with the addition of the
GalNAc ligand shows how comparatively inefficient ApoE/LDL-based uptake systems
are for liver-directed RNAi delivery.
The reason why SNALP is still more effective than GalNAc-siRNA is
because cholesterol-siRNAs do an even poorer job when it comes to the next
rate-limiting step in delivery: endosomal release.
With Arrowhead’s Dynamic Polyconjugates (DPCs) for liver-directed
knockdown, you combine the best of both worlds: effective attachment to
hepatocytes via multivalent GalNAc-ASGPR interactions and effective endosomal
release through endosomolytic polymers/peptides.
In fact, because of the potent chemistries
used for the latter step, the endosomolytic agent has to be
masked which initially made me a bit wary about the safety of DPCs (note: clinical
safety data for ARC520 are about to be released, probably in October, and the preclinical safety performance looks
good so far).
According to Arrowhead’s research, this combination allows
for more than 500-fold potency gains compared to cholesterol-siRNAs (
Wong et al. 2012).
Because the ratio of siRNA to endosomal-release peptide
has to be held constant in the clinical studies of ARC520 which is based on the
2-molecule DPC version, you will not see these
improvements in potency translated into clinical practice. This is not all that critical anyway since
ARC520 is administered intravenously and cholesterol-siRNAs should not be toxic even at elevated dosages. Still, while I’m
excited about ARC520 for all the stated reasons (see the
HBV Knockdown Blog), for the sake of Arrowhead’s
platform, I really would like to see the elegant single-molecule DPCs enter development. This should not take much longer given the advanced data presented at OTS 2012.
But hey, maybe they have already advanced into development, but they are just being referred
to as 'GalNAc-siRNA'.
8 comments:
I know I'm showing my ignorance here, but I could use some help. Is the single version of the molecule the version in which the siRNA payload is attached to the DPC, as is shown in the picture on this page of their website?
http://www.arrowheadresearch.com/technology/dynamic-polyconjugates
...whereas, because, as described in the March webcast, it's easier and more cost effective to manufacture, they are currently using the unattached, co-injected version, at least to target liver cells?
If so, I didn't realize there was still an advantage in some way to the attached version... but if there is, I guess that's good to know that there are two versions, each with its own set of advantages?
But maybe I do not have the right idea here about the single and double molecule versions of DPC that you're writing about?
Linda
Linda, you are correct.
I guess from researcher's point of view that the single molecule version will be for another tissue.
M.
Arrowhead’s two molecule DPC solution is beautiful in its simplicity. It is plenty potent, and seemingly safe. It surely is easier, cheaper, and less risky to develop than potential single-molecule DPCs. There is no shortage of liver targets that can be addressed with the co-injection paradigm. So what is the advantage for Arrowhead to develop a single-molecule solution that adds a whole level of complexity? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. At least until you have plenty of money in the bank.
I am confused by your oblique suggestion that ALNY is leaving a false impression about its science. Do you believe some of the data they presented as reflecting their platform science sprung from Arrowhead's DPC technology? That alone would be quite misleading, but even more so because ALNY only has a license for a single target.
Where does all this leave the Benitec's of this world who have pooled all of their resources, their shareholder funds and their future on double stranded DNA directed RNAi?
Tet, I appreciate your 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' comment. I don't know, however, whether a co-injection strategy would also work via the subcutaneous route of administration. So yes, while a number of indications are well served with the 2-molecule and likely intravenous version (just as is the case for SNALP), the single-molecule version provides extra target space and, get this, Big Pharma/the industry loves single-molecule approaches. For Arrowhead to build a franchise around ARC520, subQ and oral, both feasible IMO, are the next steps.
Benitec will have a bright future working with adult stem cell companies in addition to their own ddRNAi drugs. They are already working with Medistem and Regen Biopharma. Google it. Read what these companies say about Benitec's technology
Hi Dirk, thanks for another great article.
Could you please elaborate on your comment "aptamer-siRNA conjugates have been ‘viewed with skepticism’ to put it nicely".
Many thanks, Sebastian.
Post a Comment