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.