While research astounds us on a daily basis with unexpected
discoveries, sometimes it is what we don’t know and haven’t bothered to ask is what
is astounding. One example of the latter
in the field of Oligonucleotide Therapeutics is the poor understanding of which
tissues and cell types and therefore disease indications are most appropriate
for a particular (delivery) approach based on the ability to engage targets
there.
Antisense Therapeutics, over 30 years in the making, has
been the biggest violator of this principle.
Smug in the belief that delivery is not necessary, the approach has been
to just apply the oligonucleotide and then pray that it will go to the right
place and work its magic, especially in cancers. Only after
decades, the field through much clinical trial and error has come to the
realization that the liver and kidney may be pharmacologically
favored target organs.
As a result of the latest research, a roadmap of target
organs was created. Importantly, through
the application of newer RNA immunohistochemistry methods rather than the old harvesting and mashing up organs, the study looked at the specific cell types
within an organ that were amenable to RNaseH knockdown. This is important in at least two ways. Firstly, it allows us to reject a potential
target in organs where bulk knockdowns have shown a rather deep knockdown, but
where the detailed organ analysis shows that the particular cell type in which
one desired the knockdown does not show such a knockdown (e.g. kidney). Secondly, it allows one to reconsider targets
and cell types within organs for which bulk knockdowns have not been observed (e.g.
the small intestines).
Another valuable piece of insight of the study was that it
compared the old, second-generation 2’ MOE chemistry with the higher affinity
locked nucleic acid chemistry version pioneered by Santaris (in this case the
cET ISIS knock-off version of LNAs). In
addition to increasing the knockdown potency in traditional tissues such as
liver, kidney, and adipose tissue, the chemistry allows for appreciable
knockdowns in some less traditional tissues such as muscles. Unfortunately, the direct comparison between
2’ MOE and LNAs was only performed in mice and at the very high 50mg/kg dose. In the non-human primate study, also
at a very high (35mg/kg) dose, no such direct comparison was performed and from this, it seems that the new organs enabled by the higher-affinity chemistries were limited to the muscle
and lung.
Why Marina Biotech could be the 2014 high-flyer
Regular readers will notice that I have shifted some of my
investment attention to Marina Biotech.
The main reason for this is that this company which is considered by
many to be dead, actually owns the rights to a high-affinity ASO chemistry
(CRN) of a potency that is equivalent to Santaris’ LNAs and probably superior to ISIS’ cET while the
market cap of Marina is just one-thousandth that of ISIS Pharmaceuticals. Even when one considers that the in vivo safety (especially) and potency
evaluations lag behind the others due to the budget constraints of Marina Bio,
I believe it is a risk worth taking given the enormous valuation gap and the fact
that CRN PS-ASO biodistributions and activities can be assumed to be similar to
the competing chemistries.
What is more, Marina Bio is pursuing a program in type I myotonic
dystrophy which represents the
sweet spot of indications uniquely facilitated by these chemistries: muscle as
a new druggable target organ and still shielded from superior RNAi competition; a rare, severe orphan disease; and a toxic nuclear RNA.
Largely depending on the recapitalization strategy
(partnering first before capital raise or vice versa), this program together
with SMARTICLE RNAi delivery and access to usiRNAi triggers, has made me
accumulate 1.5% of the company with the intention of increasing my
position. Of course, financial success can only happen if other investors share my view that we should therefore give Marina Bio another chance. As always, invest at your own
risk and according to your unique financial circumstances.
A shameful title
If you re-read the title of the paper and even the entire
publication, you may be forgiven for going away with the impression that it is
open season for RNaseH knockdown in muscles and other tissues and organs. This is far from the truth as the ‘exemplary’
target chosen in the study was the
nuclear
non-coding RNA MALAT. This is because a high-profile Nature publication
by ISIS Pharmaceuticals itself (
Wheeler et al. 2012) has shown that whereas largely
cytoplasmic
m-e-s-s-e-n-g-e-r RNAs (i.e. RNAs encoding for proteins as even a decent high-school
kid will know) expressed in muscles were entirely recalcitrant to RNase H knockdown, the mutated
nuclear retained DMPK underlying myotonic dystrophy was susceptible to such action. Curiously,
while Wheeler
et al. was cited in the Hung paper, the authors failed to point out this important and very
obvious
caveat.
This can be no innocuous omission as ISIS Pharmaceuticals in one of
their patent applications has expressed the striking difference between mRNA and nuclear RNA druggability by PS-ASOs as follows (highlights are mine):
Reduction
of Nuclear-Retained RNA
Data provided herein
demonstrates that sensitivity
to cleavage by ASOs is dramatically increased for a nuclear-retained RNA making it possible to reduce
nuclear-retained targets in tissue that has low uptake of oligonucleotide by a
pharmacologically relevant amount. For example, out of the more than 4,000
transcripts that Isis has targeted by antisense, MALAT1, a non-coding,
nuclear-retained RNA, is demonstrated to be one of the most sensitive targets
for antisense oligonucleotide/RNase H inhibition. The data demonstrate a great
number of oligonucleotides targeting over the majority of the transcript that
inhibit by more than 50% in vitro. The data also demonstrates very low IC50
values in multiple cell types. Half-life studies have also shown that the
MALAT1 is stable over a period of at least 10 hours. Subcutaneous
administration of oligonucleotide targeting MALAT1 at doses commensurate with other
oligonucleotide drugs (e.g., liver targeting drugs) achieved pharmacologically
relevant reduction of MALAT1 in skeletal and cardiac muscle. Dosing at 50 mg/kg
biweekly for 3.5 weeks achieved a 89% and 85% reduction in gastrocnemius and
quadriceps, respectively, and 54% reduction in heart (as compared to 95%
reduction in liver). Pharmacologically relevant reduction of MALAT1 has also
been achieved in tumor xenograft models.
As a member of the Oligonucleotide Therapeutics Society, it
greatly saddens me that the related journal is letting ISIS Pharmaceuticals
get away with the highly misleading, and simply wrong title. There is no arguing around it. Followers of the competitive oligonucleotide
therapeutics investment arena know that the game here is to make RNaseH
antisense appear much more widely applicable than it actually is. What is more, it was at the 2011 OTS meeting
in Boston where the ISIS CEO Stan Crooke in his keynote made the ignonimous
statement that ‘mipomersen has no side
effects’.
I strongly
suggest to the society and the journal Nucleic Acid Therapeutics which are supposed to foster the development
of the technology broadly to keep a watchful eye on the growing corporate influence, especially by 'generous sponsors' ISIS and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.
2 comments:
Wording of the paper title aside....
If I understand correctly, you are also saying that...
* Isis has ONLY reported sufficient (i.e., 50% or greater) knock down of a nuclear retained target RNA (e.g., MALAT1) in muscle with either the MOE or Gen 2.5 chemistry in a preclinical research model, but alternatively...
* has not reported the same extent of knock down for a cytoplasmic mRNA target in muscle with either chemistry in a preclinical research model….correct?
So that is my first question, just to make sure I understand you correctly.
Second question, related to the 1st would be....
* would you classify 50% or greater knock down of scavenger receptor B1 (SR-B1) mRNA in muscle as fulfilling the aforementioned cytoplasmic mRNA target knock down criteria, since nuclear retained MALAT1 did not?
If I’m on the same page with you in regards to my 1st question and your answer is yes to the 2nd question, then what is stated in my last bullet-point has indeed been reported in Nucleic Acids Research with the Gen 2.5 chemistry (and also with tcDNA gapmer oligonucleotide chemistry, which is of course not an Isis chemistry).
Conversely, as expected, and as alluded to in your post, in this Nucleic Acids Research article, Isis themselves reported MOE chemistry did not meet the 50% or greater knock down in any muscle tissue evaluated.
OK, let's just ignore the title. Are you serious? The title is the major issue with the paper. It is simply WRONG and very conveniently misleading.
So after asking me to ignore the elephant in the room, you are inviting me to splitting hairs with you? Oh yes, somewhere for some gene ISIS has shown some type of mediocre knockdown at therapeutically irrelevant doses?
May I ask you to read the ISIS patent application where they state that 'the sensitivity to cleavage by ASOs is DRAMATICALLY increased for a nuclear-retained RNA' (emphasis mine). So if there are dramatic differences how can the nuclear non-coding MALAT RNA be a proxy for mRNAs?
I'm sorry to tell you, but ISIS ain't no saints.
Post a Comment