#ChemCoach Carnival: From Big Pharma to Non-Profit

We’re almost at the end of National Chemistry week, folks, and the Haystack is finally kicking in to blogger SeeArrOh’s now rampant #ChemCoach carnival. The goal of any carnival is to get a lot of different bloggers to post on the same topic–in this case, to write about how they got to where they are today as a way of educating young chemists on their career options. Round-ups of the dozens of posts this week can be found here, here, and here. Since the science writing field has been well covered here and by our own Carmen Drahl, and because the Haystack is focused on all things pharma, I thought I’d enlist the help of someone with a much more illustrious career than my own. Without further ado, I give you some words of career wisdom from TB Alliance‘s chemistry guru Christopher Cooper: Your current job.   I’m Senior Director of Chemistry at the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development (TB Alliance), a non-profit, product development partnership headquartered in New York City.  My job encompasses all chemistry activities for the Alliance from early-, mid-, and late-stage drug discovery right through drug substance/API manufacturing for clinical trials.  The TB Alliance is dedicated to identifying safe, novel chemical entities for the rapid treatment of tuberculosis worldwide, and my job is to oversee the Alliance’s chemistry needs to achieve our goals (seewww.tballiance.org for more details). What you do in a standard “work day.”   Define “standard” … oh, and define “work day,” as well, please? All kidding aside, working for a small (~45 employees), entrepreneurial, research and development organization means that every day is truly different, whether it’s engaged in project team discussions with collaborators in Chicago and Belgium, or proposing new analogues/chemical series to pursue with chemists in Auckland or Seoul!  In fact, as we engage chemists (medicinal, process, manufacturing) on TB Alliance projects around the globe, my work “day” doesn’t really begin or end.  After all, if it’s 9:00 P.M. on the East Coast, it’s already 9:00 A.M. in Beijing!  Fortunately, the virtual nature of our business model translates into my own flexibility in addressing issues wherever and whenever they occur … and I don’t have to wash my glassware anymore (yey!). What kind of schooling / training / experience helped you get there?   In many ways, my background would appear fairly conventional, despite the more unconventional nature of my current position.  I received my B.S. from Clemson University in 1980, and my M.S. (1982) and Ph.D.’s (1988) from Stanford.  Having worked briefly in the pharmaceutical industry (CIBA-Geigy from 1982-1984), I was eager to return so I accepted a position...

Read More

Cantley Talks Pfizer CTI Collaboration

As drug companies forge closer ties with academic researchers, the value of pharma-academia partnerships continues to be cause for much debate (see here, here,  here, and here for more on that). We’ve watched the evolution of these collaborations with interest, and as part of our ongoing coverage, this week’s issue brings an in-depth look at the mechanics of Pfizer’s Centers for Therapeutic Innovation, its network of academic partners centered on hubs in San Francisco, New York, Boston, and San Diego. But much of our focus has been on what drug companies can gain from deeper ties with academia. There’s another side to the coin: what the academic lab gains from teaming up with industry. While visiting Pfizer’s Boston CTI, I was glad to have a long chat with Harvard’s Lewis Cantley, known in cancer research circles for the discovery of the PI3K pathway, about why it made sense to link up with Pfizer. Cantley has had many pharma partnerships, was a founder of Agios Pharmaceuticals, and has sat on the boards of other start-ups. As such, I was curious what made him want to turn to Pfizer for this particular project—developing a drug against a cancer target discovered in his lab–rather than go at it alone, or try to spin out another company. Cantley conceded that his lab could have plugged away at the target for several years and eventually come up with something promising. But the target requires an antibody, and his lab is more experienced at discovering small molecules. Pfizer, meanwhile, could step in with expertise and technology that they otherwise would never have access to, significantly speeding up the drug discovery process. Further, Pfizer made teaming up easy. “The legalities of conflict of interest issues and IP issues had all been addressed with negotiations between Harvard and Pfizer before they even solicited proposals,” Cantley says. “To me, this was huge.” He notes that past partnerships with industry have involved at least a year of negotiating before anyone gets down to doing business—or, as it may be, science. Another positive was that working with Pfizer meant researchers in his lab could continue to be involved with the project. When Cantley became a founder of Agios, which focuses on developing drugs that interrupt cancer cell metabolism, he could no longer ethically allow students in his lab work on that aspect of the science. But under the Pfizer pact, post-docs can continue to explore the drug development as well as any basic biological questions that may arise. Lastly, Cantley was attracted by the facility with which Pfizer and academic scientists could interact. As it turns out, Cantley’s labs are...

Read More
Rigged Reactions: Biocatalysis Meets 13C NMR
Jul19

Rigged Reactions: Biocatalysis Meets 13C NMR

When you think of reaction screening, what comes to mind? Most would say LC-MS, the pharma workhorse, which shows changes in molecular polarity, mass, and purity with a single injection. Some reactions provide conversion clues, like evolved light or heat. In rare cases, we can hook up an in-line NMR analysis – proton (1H) usually works best due to its high natural abundance (99.9%). Please welcome a new screening technique: 13C NMR. How can that work, given the low, low natural abundance of ~1.1% Carbon-13? Researchers at UT-Southwestern Medical Center have the answer: rig the system. Jamie Rogers and John MacMillan report in JACS ASAP 13C-labeled versions of several common drug fragments, which they use to screen new biocatalyzed reactions. Biocatalysis = big business for the pharma world. The recent Codexis / Merck partnership for HCV drug boceprevir brought forth an enzyme capable of asymmetric amine oxidation. Directed evolution of an enzyme made sense here, since they knew their target structure, but what if we just want to see if microbes will alter our molecules? Enter the labeled substrates: the researchers remark that they provide an “unbiased approach to biocatalysis discovery.” They’re not looking to accelerate a certain reaction per se, but rather searching for any useful modifications using the 13C “detector” readout. One such labeled substrate, N-(13C)methylindole, shows proof-of-concept with their bacterial library, producing two different products (2-oxindole and 3-hydroxyindole) depending on the amount of oxygen dissolved in the broth. NMR autosamplers make reaction monitoring a snap, and in short order, the scientists show biotransformations of ten more indole substrates. This paper scratches multiple itches for various chem disciplines. Tracking single peaks to test reactions feels spookily close to 31P monitoring of metal-ligand catalysis. Organickers, no strangers to medicinally-relevant indole natural products, now have another stir-and-forget oxidation method. Biochemists will no doubt wish to tinker with each bacterial strain to improve conversion or expand scope. The real question will be how easily we can incorporate 13C labels into aromatic rings and carbon chains, which would greatly increase the overall...

Read More

#ASCO12 Data Digest: Overcoming Resistance in Metastatic Melanoma

The following is a guest post from Sally Church (known to many in the twittersphere as @MaverickNY), from the Pharma Strategy Blog. Not long ago, metastatic melanoma was considered a graveyard for clinical research. But last year brought a major breakthrough in treating skin cancer: the approval of Roche’s Zelboraf (vemurafenib), a small molecule that has proven highly effective at treating the roughly 50% of the patient population that carry the BRAFV600E mutation. However, Zelboraf has limitations. Patients’ disease eventually becomes resistant to the drug and the lesions caused by the skin cancer tend to return after 6 to 9 months. At the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting earlier this month, the big two questions on cancer specialists’ minds were: what are the mechanisms of resistance and how can we develop strategies to overcome them? An amazing thing about current melanoma research is that several physician-scientists involved in the clinical trials are also actively involved in translational research–this is sadly the exception rather than the rule, in oncology. But the connection between basic science and bedside has meant new targets are being identified and quickly tested in the clinic. One potential target recently discovered was MEK, a kinase that sits along the same signaling pathway as BRAF. When BRAF activity is turned off by Zelboraf, cancer finds a way to compensate for the loss by exploiting other kinases in the pathway. Researchers think that by combining a BRAF inhibitor with a MEK inhibitor, the pathway might be more comprehensively shut down than by either alone. Consequently, there was a tremendous amount of buzz around a melanoma trial that looked at combining a BRAF inhibitor, GSK2118436 (dabrafenib), and a MEK 1/2 inhibitor, GSK1120212 (trametinib). Previous studies have shown that given alone, dabrafenib could result in solid response rates of 59%; trametinib, meanwhile, produced a 25% response rate when given as a single agent. Jeffrey Weber from Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa presented the results of the complex phase I/II study, which included melanoma patients with either the BRAFV600 E or K mutation who had not undergone treatment of any kind. The hope was that by suppressing the MAP kinase-dependent resistance mechanisms, patients would enjoy three kinds of improvements over current treatment: 1) Improved progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and survival 2) Prolonged duration of response 3) Decreased incidence of BRAFi-induced proliferative skin lesions An impressive waterfall plot of tumor shrinkage for patients (n=77) with the BRAFV600K mutation drew gasps from the audience – only four patients failed to respond to the combination, while the majority had a response of 30% or better. This isn’t something you see every...

Read More

#BIO2012: Pfizer’s academic push by the numbers

The evolution of the model for academic-pharma collaboration has been a topic of much discussion as more companies try to tap into university talent for early-stage research (recent examples of collaborations can be found here and here). Industry observers question whether anything tangible will come out of the efforts (see here for a recent critique), believing the divergent missions and cultural differences of each organization inevitably sidelines these pacts. Pfizer is making one of the more aggressive pushes through its Centers for Therapeutic Innovation. Under the CTI model, Pfizer has set up labs in research hotbeds like Boston and San Francisco, where, through partnerships with various academic institutions, its scientists work side-by-side with university scientists to discover new biologics-based drugs. This week at BIO, I sat down with Tony Coyle, CTI’s chief scientific officer, to talk about CTI’s progress. A more in-depth look at the CTI model will come in the pages of the magazine, but in the meantime, I wanted to share some facts and figures that came out of our chat: Number of CTIs formed: Four (San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Boston) Number of academic centers involved: 20 Number of Pfizer scientists across each of its dedicated labs: roughly 100 (Coyle says about 75% were hired from the outside, coming from biotech, academia, with a few from big pharma) Number of proposals reviewed in the last year: 400 Percentage of proposals overlapping with internal Pfizer efforts: <5% Number of proposals funded so far: 23 Number of therapeutic areas being studied: 4 (rare diseases, inflammation, cardiovascular disease, and oncology) Facts and figures aside, Pfizer is trying to move as quickly as possible given the learning curve of teaming with academia. Coyle said he’s promised his bosses that by the third year of the effort, at least four drugs will be in human studies across multiple therapeutic areas. “We’re well on our way to identifying a number of candidates, and I have no doubt that in the next 18 months, we’ll be in our first patient studies,” he added. Those numbers could change in 2013, when Pfizer potentially expands its CTI outside the U.S. “Ex-U.S is still our ambition,” Coyle says. “2012 has been a period of ‘lets build the group, get the programs and start executing on the pipeline.’ For 2013, we will be and are looking at opportunities ex-U.S., and have had some pretty good discussions to date...

Read More
TEDMED and Alzheimer’s: Gregory Petsko, Reisa Sperling, and the next Al Gore
Apr12

TEDMED and Alzheimer’s: Gregory Petsko, Reisa Sperling, and the next Al Gore

Gregory Petsko knows why he came to TEDMED. “I’m looking for Al Gore,” he told me flat-out over lunch. Folks who know Petskoknow the former Brandeis University biochemistry department chair isn’t one to mince words. And he’s nailed the reason why an academic might want to look outside traditional conferences and soak up some of the TEDMED aura. He’s looking for a charismatic champion to take up a biomedical cause: in Petsko’s case, it’s support for research in Alzheimer’s disease. Petsko and Reisa Sperling, director of the Center for Alzheimer’s Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, talked about Alzheimer’s at TEDMED on Wednesday. Both talks were cast as calls to action. Just consider the introduction Petsko got from TEDMED chair and Priceline.com founder Jay S. Walker: “This is a man who hears a bomb ticking.” Alzheimer’s statistics are sobering and Petsko used them to dramatic effect. People who will reach 80 by the year 2050 have a 1 in 3 chance of developing the disease if nothing is done, he told the audience. “And yet I hear no clamor,” he said. “I hear no sense of urgency.” Petsko shared some not-yet-published work with TEDMED’s audience. His team is looking at a less-trod path of Alzheimer’s biology– the role protein sorting defects might play in the development of the disease. Their focus is on a protein complex called the retromer, which Petsko likened to a truck driver, because its job is to sort and send proteins either to the golgi–the cell’s recycling center, or to the lysosome for snipping. For Alzheimer’s, the thought is that improper sorting can make the difference between normalcy and an accumulation of amyloid-beta, the protein thought to be a key player in developing the disease. Petsko told me that his collaborator, Scott Small of Columbia University Medical School, discovered that retromer played a role in Alzheimer’s (Neuron, DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.09.001).   Petsko’s team has developed small molecules that increase the level of active retromer complex in the cell. So far, their agents have been evaluated in cultured cells. Tests in mice are ongoing. It’s important for the Alzheimer’s field to look beyond amyloid-beta, says Kevin Sweeney, a TEDMED attendee who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and is part of the Rosenberg Alzheimer’s Project, a nascent organization that supports alternative avenues in Alzheimer’s research. “For a while, at least, the Alzheimer’s space looks like so many of the [clinical] trials have pursued a relatively narrow range of theories,” he says. Even though those theories aren’t fully played out, “we still think it’s useful to start looking for other strands,”...

Read More