↓ Expand ↓

Posts Tagged → Roche

Roche’s GA101 (obinutuzumab): Engineering an antibody to beat Rituxan

The following is a guest post from Sally Church (known to many in the twittersphere as @MaverickNY), from the Pharma Strategy Blog.

Survival rates for people with B-cell driven blood cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, have vastly improved in the last decade thanks to the introduction of Rituxan, marketed by Biogen Idec and Genentech. But the drug, a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting CD-20, a protein that sits on the surface of B-cells, has its limitations: not all patients respond at first, and others become resistant to the drug over time.

As a result, companies are tinkering with the sugar molecules that decorate antibodies in hopes of coming up with a drug that binds better to its target and, ultimately, is more effective at battling cancer. At the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, held earlier this year in Chicago, Roche offered Phase III data showing its glycoengineered antibody GA-101 worked better than Rituxan at delaying the progression of CLL. If all goes well with FDA, the drug could be approved by the end of the year.

BACKGROUND:

Although the CD20 antigen is expressed on both normal and malignant cells, it has proven to be a useful target therapeutically.  Rituximab, ofatumumab and most of the anti-CD20 antibodies in earlier development are Type I monoclonal antibodies, which means that they have good complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) and Ab-dependent cell mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC), but are weak inducers of direct cell death.

In contrast to Type I monoclonal antibodies, next generation monoclonals are increasingly Type II, such as GA101 (obinutuzumab) in CLL and NHL and mogamulizumab (anti-CCR4), for T-cell leukemias and lymphomas.  They have little CDC activity, but are much more effective at inducing ADCC and also direct cell death, at least based on in vitro studies performed to date.

How does glycoengineering make a difference?

Glycoengineering is the term used to refer to manipulation of sugar molecules to improve the binding of monoclonal antibodies with immune effector cells, thereby increasing ADCC.

Obinutuzumab is a very different molecule from rituximab, in that it is a novel compound in its own right (originally developed by scientists at Glycart before being bought by Genentech).  It is not a biosimilar of rituximab.  It is also a glycoengineered molecule designed specifically to improve efficacy through greater affinity to the Fc receptor, thereby increasing ADCC activity.GA101

The overall intent with the development of obinutuzumab was to significantly improve efficacy over rituximab and Type I monoclonal antibodies in B-cell malignancies using glycoengineering techniques.

At the recent ASCO annual meeting, data from a phase III trial was presented to evaluate rituximab or obinutuzumab in combination with the chemotherapy chlorambucil versus chlorambucil alone in newly diagnosed CLL.  Patients elderly and had co-existing co-morbidities, excluding them from standard chemotherapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC).

This two part trial sought to compare both combinations to the chemotherapy initially, and then against each other in a head-to-head comparison once the survival data matured in the second phase.  Data from the first phase of the study was reported at this meeting.

What did the results show?

When looking at the response rates, both obinutuzumab and rituximab combinations had a higher overall response rate (ORR) than chemotherapy alone (75.5% and 65.9% vs. 30.2% and 30.0%).  Importantly, the combinations had a great proportion of complete responses (CR) i.e. 22.2% and 8.3% compared to 0% in the chlorambucil arms.

Minimal residual disease (MRD), a measure of the number of leukemia cells remaining in the blood, was 31.1% in the peripheral blood of the obinutuzumab combination compared with 0% in the chemotherapy arm.  Corresponding values in the rituximab and chlorambucil arms were 2.0% and 0%, respectively.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) i.e. the length of time during which people lived without their disease worsening for the obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil arm were impressively higher than chemotherapy alone.  PFS was more than doubled (23 months compared to 10.9 months, HR=0.14, p <.0001) when compared to chlorambucil alone.  The corresponding outcome data for the rituximab combination were 15.7 versus 10.8 months for chlorambucil alone (HR=0.32, p <.0001).

Since ASCO, Roche have announced that the FDA granted Priority Review for obinutuzumab in CLL (in addition to the Breakthrough Designation already received in May, when the company filed a new drug application for obinutuzumab), meaning that the PDUFA date is set as December 20th.  In addition, the Data Monitoring Committee decided that the interim data analysis was sufficient to meet the primary endpoint of the trial, ahead of schedule.  The data confirms that obinutuzumab was superior to rituximab in terms of the disease worsening (PFS).  The full data will be presented at ASH in December, when overall survival data (ie did the patients live longer) may be available.

The adverse event profiles were slightly different between the monoclonal antibodies.  Patients in the obinutuzumab arm experienced more infusion site reactions, and a slightly higher degree of myelosuppression (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia), but lower infection rates.

Overall findings

The study demonstrated that both obinutuzumab and rituximab were more beneficial to elderly patients living with CLL and co-existing medical conditions than chemotherapy alone.  The final head to head analysis of the two combinations will be available once the second stage of the study has mature data.  Based on the progress to date, the signs are very encouraging that the chemical engineering behind the development of obinutuzumab may potentially have produced a superior compound to rituximab for treatment of B-cell malignancies.

Should the mature outcome data show a positive survival advantage in obinutuzumab’s favour over rituximab, we may well see similar glycoengineering techniques applied to other monoclonal antibodies in the near future, potentially leading to further improvement in outcomes.

 

After Nutley Closure, Roche Picks NYC For East Coast R&D Site

Just months after announcing it would close its storied Nutley, N.J., R&D site, Roche said today that it will open a translational clinical research center at New York City’s Alexandria Life Sciences Center. The move means three big pharma firms will soon be enjoying a view of the East River: Lilly was the flagship tenant when two years ago it moved some 140 scientists from ImClone’s lower Manhattan labs into the sparkling new site. Pfizer later chose the Alexandria center for the New York hub of its Centers for Therapeutic Innovation, a unit that teams Pfizer scientists with academic scientists.

When Roche said it was shutting down the Nutley site, it said it was in search of an East Coast location for a much smaller research footprint. Some had initially speculated that Cambridge, Mass., would be the obvious choice for Roche, as most pharma companies have shifted their main East Coast R&D to the Boston area. More recently, it emerged that Roche was deciding between two locations in NY and N.J. Today’s release indicates that Roche plans to stick around N.Y. for awhile: it has signed an 11-year lease at the Alexandria Center.

Does this mean NYC, which has long struggled to attract pharma and biotech researchers to its fair streets, is starting to see some momentum in the life sciences?

The HCV Combo Race Just Got Hotter

BMS is shelling out $2.5 billion dollars for Inhibitex, a small pharma company with a Phase II molecule for treatment of Hepatitis C (HCV). The deal adds to the scramble for HCV assets in recent months, with Gilead agreeing to pay almost $11 billion for Pharmasset in November, and Roche’s recent purchase of Anadys. While much has been written about the merits (and price tags) of each deal, the Haystack thought it was worth taking a closer look at the chemical composition of the multi-million dollar molecules.

So what did BMS get for their money?

INX-089, Inhibitex’s lead molecule, has a common antiviral motif: a nucleoside core (the 5-membered ring sugar attached to a nitrogen heterocycle) with an amino acid based prodrug hanging off the left-hand side. Clinically-tested antivirals sharing this basic setup include IDX-184 and NM-283, both from Idenix, and PSI-352938, from Pharmasset  (For an overview of the varied structures currently in development for HCV, see Lisa’s 2010 C&EN story).

INX-089 bears a close resemblance to Pharmasset’s lead nucleotide inhibitor PSI-7977. That’s not a mistake, believes ‘089 discoverer Chris McGuigan, of the Welsh School of Pharmacy. In a recent article (J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53, 4949), McGuigan himself comments “The Pharmasset nucleoside [is] rather parallel to our early work on anti-HIV ProTides.”

Wait, what are ProTides?

Both INX-089 and PSI-7977 aren’t themselves the active viral inhibitor, but phosphoramidate “ProTide” prodrugs: compounds broken down by the body into the active drug (Chem Note: PSI-7977 has single-enantiomer Sp chirality at phosphorus, while INX-189 is a mixture of diastereomers).

Once in the body, enzymes cleave the phosphoramidate group to a phosphate (PO42-). Kinases attach two more phosphate groups, and viruses let this dressed-up molecule inside, where the nucleotide warhead inhibits HCV by interfering with RNA replication (Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011, 55, 1843).

A few comments on the drug itself: The similarity of the ProTide portion (left-hand side) of the molecule to PSI-7977 really is striking: swap in an isobutyl ester and a phenyl, and it’s the same beast! The more interesting switch comes on the upper-right (“eastern”) part of the structure: a protected guanosine ring. This ring harks back to guanine, one of the four common nucleic acids found in DNA.

Source: J. Med. Chem., Pharmasset

PSI-7977, meanwhile, shows off a uracil, a nucleic acid found in RNA, not DNA.

Although it’s tempting to think such similar compounds all dock into the NS5B polymerase at the active site (in the yellow “palm” of the hand-shaped enzyme), don’t be too sure – a recent paper by Pharmasset scientists (J. Med. Chem. 2012, Just Accepted) shows quite a few “Finger,” “Palm,” and “Thumb” sites.  It’s not yet clear whether all nucleoside drugs bind to the active site in the same way. The authors also remark that, due to fast replication and mutation, potentially resistant strains of HCV pop up daily.

Haystack 2011 Year-in-Review

Well, 2011 is in the books, and we here at The Haystack felt nostalgic for all the great chemistry coverage over this past year, both here and farther afield. Let’s hit the high points:

1. HCV Takes Off – New treatments for Hepatitis C have really gained momentum. An amazing race has broken out to bring orally available, non-interferon therapies to market. In October, we saw Roche acquire Anadys for setrobuvir, and then watched Pharmasset’s success with PSI-7977 prompt Gilead’s $11 billion November buyout.  And both these deals came hot on the heels of Merck and Vertex each garnering FDA approval for Victrelis and Incivek, respectively, late last spring.

2. Employment Outlook: Mixed – The Haystack brought bad employment tidings a few times in 2011, as Lisa reported. The “patent cliff” faced by blockbuster drugs, combined with relatively sparse pharma pipelines, had companies tightening their belts more than normal. Traffic also increased for Chemjobber Daily Pump Trap updates, which cover current job openings for chemists of all stripes. The highlight, though, might be his Layoff Project.  He collects oral histories from those who’ve lost their jobs over the past few years due to the pervasive recession and (slowly) recovering US economy.. The result is a touching, direct, and sometimes painful collection of stories from scientists trying to reconstruct their careers, enduring salary cuts, moves, and emotional battles just to get back to work.

3. For Cancer, Targeted Therapies – It’s also been quite a year for targeted cancer drugs. A small subset of myeloma patients (those with a rare mutation) gained hope from vemurafenib approval. This molecule, developed initially by Plexxikon and later by Roche / Daiichi Sankyo, represents the first success of fragment-based lead discovery, where a chunk of the core structure is built up into a drug with help from computer screening.From Ariad’s promising  ponatinib P2 data for chronic myeloid leukemia, to Novartis’s Afinitor working in combination with aromasin to combat resistant breast cancer. Lisa became ‘xcited for Xalkori, a protein-driven lung cancer therapeutic from Pfizer. Researchers at Stanford Medical School used GLUT1 inhibitors to starve renal carcinomas of precious glucose, Genentech pushed ahead MEK-P31K inhibitor combinations for resistant tumors, and Incyte’s new drug Jakifi (ruxolitinib), a Janus kinase inhibitor, gave hope to those suffering from the rare blood cancer myelofibrosis.

4. Sirtuins, and “Stuff I Won’t Work With  – Over at In the Pipeline, Derek continued to chase high-profile pharma stories. We wanted to especially mention his Sirtris / GSK coverage (we had touched on this issue in Dec 2010). He kept up with the “sirtuin saga” throughout 2011, from trouble with duplicating life extension in model organisms to the Science wrap-up at years’ end. Derek also left us with a tantalizing tidbit for 2012 – the long-awaited “Things I Won’t Work With” book may finally be coming out!

5. Active Antibacterial Development – In the middle of 2011, several high-profile and deadly bacterial infections (Germany, Colorado, among others) shined a spotlight on those companies developing novel antibacterials. We explored front -line antibiotics for nasty Gram-negative E.coli, saw FDA approval for Optimer’s new drug Fidiclir (fidaxomicin) show promise against C. difficile  and watched Anacor’s boron-based therapeutics advance into clinical testing for acne, and a multi-year BARDA grant awarded to GSK and Anacor to develop antibacterials against bioterrorism microorganisms like Y. pestis.

6. Obesity, Diabetes, and IBS – Drugs for metabolic disorders have been well-represented in Haystack coverage since 2010. Both Carmen and See Arr Oh explored the vagaries of Zafgen’s ZGN-433 structure, as the Contrave failure threatened to sink obesity drug development around the industry. Diabetes drugs tackled some novel mechanisms and moved a lot of therapies forward, such as Pfizer’s SGLT2 inhibitors, and Takeda’s pancreatic GPCR agonist. Ironwood and Forest, meanwhile, scored an NDA for their macrocyclic peptide drug, linaclotide.

7. The Medicine Show: Pharma’s Creativity Conundrum – In this piece from October, after Steve Jobs’ passing, Forbes columnist Matt Herper both eulogizes Jobs and confronts a real ideological break between computer designers and drug developers. His emphasis? In biology and medical fields, “magical thinking” does not always fix situations as it might in computer development.

We hope you’ve enjoyed wading through the dense forest of drug development with Carmen, Aaron, Lisa, and See Arr Oh this past year. We here at The Haystack wish you a prosperous and healthy 2012, and we invite you to come back for more posts in the New Year!

HCV Followup: Anadys Acquired for Active Antiviral

It’s been a busy six months for new Hepatitis C (HCV) meds: first, Merck and Vertex have their drugs approved in May, and then Pharmasset leaks PSI-7977 clinical data. Now, Anadys Pharmaceuticals has just announced Phase IIb results for its clinical candidate setrobuvir (ANA-598). The pill lowered virus levels to undetectable limits in 78% of patients after 12 weeks of combination treatment with either ribavirin or pegylated interferon. Anadys notes only one major side effect, a rash occurring in 1/3 of the ‘598-treated patients. The therapy targets patients in tough-to-treat HCV genotype 1 (gen1), unlike PSI-7977, which targets gen2 and gen3.

The data seems to have convinced Roche, which acquired Anadys last Monday in all-cash deal analysts say represented a 260% premium over Anadys’s Friday stock closing price. Roche, no stranger to the HCV battle, hopes to integrate setrobuvir into a potential oral drug cocktail with its current suite of polymerase and protease inhibitors.

Setrobuvir interacts with N5SB polymerase at the allosteric “palm” binding site, located in the center of the baseball-mitt shaped enzyme. The drug’s sulfur-nitrogen heterocycle – a benzothiadiazine – is the key to virus inhibition; Anadys has installed the motif in all their HCV inhibitors, going back to their 2005 patents.

Chemists have known about the virus-targeting properties of this heterocycle for a while, but most derivatives have been culled in pre-clinical testing (see J. Antimicrob. Chemoth. 2004, 54, 14-16 for a brief review). Interestingly, chemists initially prepared benzodiathiazines, such as those in Merck’s chlorothiazide (c. 1957, according to the Merck Index), as diuretics, which found use in diabetic treatment. Over the next 40 years, modified medicines treated conditions ranging from epilepsy and cognitive therapy to hypertension and transcriptase regulation. Tweaked benzodiathiazines first showed anti-HIV and anti-CMV activity in the mid-1990s.

One final advantageous wrinkle in this structure: unlike PSI-7977, setrobuvir is not nucleoside-derived. This feature changes its binding behavior, pharmacokinetics, and even its intellectual property strategies, since many current antiviral therapies mimic the nucleosides found in RNA and DNA chains.

 

The Right Kinase, Part II – Roche and Daiichi’s Vemurafenib Approved

Last week, the FDA approved Zelboraf (vemurafenib), co-marketed by Roche and Daiichi Sankyo, for the treatment of melanoma characterized by genetic mutation BRAF V600E, which occurs in a subset of the overall patient population. Treatment of late-stage melanoma patients with Zelboraf increases their survival around five months longer than traditional chemotherapy. Cancer-stricken families believe this extra time justifies the $9400 / month price tag for the treatment, considering the dearth of treatments currently available for these near-terminal patients  (for a more detailed look into the people who brought vemurafenib to market, read Amy Harmon’s New York Times article series from 2010).

Vemurafenib went from concept to approval in just six years, lightning-fast for pharma, which usually takes decades to bring a drug to market. So, what’s the secret behind its success?

Vemurafenib, developed initially by San Francisco pharma company Plexxikon (acquired in 2011 by Daiichi Sankyo) shows all the hallmarks of rational drug design. Initial screening of a 20,000-member compound library against the ATP-binding site of 3 kinases (Pim-1, CSK, and p38) yielded a 7-azaindole lead structure. This approach, known as fragment-based lead discovery (FBLD) – the concept that a drug can be built up from a tiny piece as opposed to a high-potency binder –  may represent a first for the industry, as pointed out by Dan Erlanson of blog Practical Fragments. Further synthetic modification of this azaindole fragment, supported by computer binding studies, showed that a hydrophobic (nonpolar) pocket on the enzyme surface could best be filled by a difluoro-phenylsulfonamide group. Biochemical assays confirmed that a ketone linker (in place of the 3-aminophenyl group shown above) between the azaindole and the sulfonamide increased potency. Additionally, a 5-chloro residue on the azaindole eventually became a 4-chlorophenyl group; it’s unclear how this relatively non-polar group helps improve binding, since early active-site models suggest it faces out towards the watery cell cytoplasm.

How is Zelboraf halting melanoma growth? It all comes down to kinase inhibition, a topic covered with both a story and a Haystack post here at C&EN last year. B-RAF, a common gene overexpressed in melanoma cells, produces a protein kinase that is selectively inhibited by Zelboraf. Once shut off, this pathway reinstates a “lost” negative feedback loop for the BRAF V600E tumor cells, resulting in a cascade failure of growth factors further down the line. Cell growth arrest or apoptosis (cell death) follows, but only for the targeted melanoma cells, with no effect on non-cancerous cells.

In an interesting twist, a review published in July shows that inhibitors of Raf kinases (the family of kinases that includes the product of the B-RAF gene) can be developed for either the “activated” or “resting” forms of the enzyme. These two forms of the same enzymatic target show remarkably different clinical applications: Zelboraf targets the “activated” Raf kinase.  Bayer’s Nexavar (sorafenib), a “resting”-form Raf inhibitor, was approved in 2005 for treatment of kidney and liver cancer, but shows little activity against BRAF V600E melanoma.

Update (4:30PM, 8/25/11) – Deleted “in silico” from screening description. Assays were run in vitro using AlphaScreen beads (PerkinElmer).

Merck Seals Hepatitis C Pact with Roche

Merck is going bare knuckles in the marketing battle for Hepatitis C patients. Just days after receiving FDA approval to market its protease inhibitor boceprevir, now known as Victrelis, it revealed Roche has signed on to co-promote the drug alongside its pegylated interferon drug Pegasys, a cornerstone of HCV treatment.

Competition in the HCV arena is expected to be fierce, as Vertex Pharmaceuticals is expected to get the FDA nod to market its own protease inhibitor for HCV telaprevir, to be marketed as Incivek, no later than Monday. Both the Merck and Vertex drugs will need to be taken in combination with the current standard of care, pegylated interferon and ribavirin.

Although the two drugs have never gone head to head in the clinic, telaprevir is widely considered to have a better dosing regimen and a slight safety and efficacy edge over Victrelis. As such, analysts have believed that Merck’s main advantage in the HCV market would be its ability to promote Victrelis alongside its own pegylated interferon PegIntron. Now, it will also have Roche’s sales force out there hawking Victrelis with Pegasys, as well.

No financials for the deal were announced, so its hard to say at this point how much Merck is giving up in its quest for a bigger piece of the HCV market. It’s also important to note that this is a non-exclusive pact, so time will tell whether Roche and Vertex establish a similar alliance.

The deal also allows Merck and Roche to “explore new combinations of investigational and marketed medicines.” As readers will recall, the ultimate goal is to eliminate the need for interferon and ribavirin, which have harsh side effects, and treat HCV using only a cocktail of pills. Roche and Merck each have promising small molecules against HCV in their pipelines: Merck has vaniprevir, an NS3/4a protease inhibitor in Phase II trials, while Roche has the polymerase inhibitor RG7128, the protease inhibitor RG7227, and the earlier-phase polymerase inhibitor RG7432.

Read here for past coverage of the race to get new HCV drugs to market.

Roche Cuts Back RNAi Research

As part of sweeping job cuts announced this morning, Roche said it would close down RNAi research at three sites: Kulmbach, Germany; Madison, Wis.; and Nutley, NJ. It seemed worth taking a look at how much money Roche has sunk into RNAi research so far, and where it means for the overall RNAi landscape.

Let’s start with the Kulmbach site. Back in 2007, Roche paid Alnylam $331 million in cash and equity for the site, as part of a broad pact covering RNAi drugs for oncology, respiratory diseases, metabolic diseases, and certain liver diseases. The 40 Alnylam employees working at Kulmbach were transferred over to Roche as it made the site its “center of excellence” for RNAi. According to Alnylam’s financial statements, Roche was its largest research collaborator, contributing $14 million last quarter. In 2009, Alnylam recorded $57 million in research revenues from Roche.

In a statement this morning, Alnylam said that Roche’s RNAi overhaul “does not fundamentally impact Alnylalm’s financial position nor current or future plans in building its pipeline and advancing RNAi therapeutics as a whole new class of medicines.”

Now onto the Madison, Wis., site. In 2008, Roche agreed to pay $125 million for Mirus Bio, which brought the Madison site along with 20 employees. As we described in an earlier article, Mirus had devised an siRNA delivery system called dynamic polyconjugate technology.

Which brings us to 2009, when Roche said it would fork over $18.4 million upfront to use Tekmira’s lipid nanoparticle deliver technology to put its RNAi products into the clinic. Mirus’ technology was not quite ready for prime time, and Roche wanted to look at another delivery strategy to accelerate product development. When Roche signed that deal, it said the goal was to put its first RNAi-based product into human trials by the end of 2010. In a statement today, Tekmira noted that most of its revenues comes from a manufacturing deal with Alnylam, and it still has broad partnerships with Pfizer, Takeda, and Bristol-Myers.

The tally? Upfront payments and the Mirus acquisition bring Roche’s investment in RNAi to nearly half a billion dollars in the last three years. That’s not taking into account whatever it was spending on development in Nutley, along with research support to Alnylam and, more modestly, to Tekmira.

The Right Kinase

Plexxikon's drug candidate for melanoma, PLX4032 (green), binds to the kinase B-RAF (yellow). Image Courtesy of Gideon Bollag

Today I posted a news story about the debut of the structure of PLX4032, a promising melanoma drug developed by Berkeley, California startup Plexxikon. This drug’s story has already been given the narrative treatment courtesy of the New York Times. And when the results of a Phase I clinical trial of PLX4032 came out, it got covered in many other news outlets as well. But we here at The Haystack are most interested in PLX4032′s chemical backstory. And when I contacted kinase expert Kevan M. Shokat for his opinion on the work, he said the story has another dimension- clues about how to pick the right kinase targets to treat diseases. Continue reading →

Aileron & Roche in Stapled Peptides Pact

Roche has agreed to pay up to $1.1 billion for access to technology at Aileron Therapeutics, a tiny Cambridge, Mass.-based biotech focused on developing stapled peptides. As part of the deal, Roche and Aileron will develop drug candidates against five targets.

Stapled peptides make intriguing drug candidates for their ability to access previously intractable targets. As we’ve described:

Protein-embedded α-helices mediate key protein handshakes in cancer, HIV, and other diseases. But actually using an α-helix as a drug has proven tricky. So-called stapled α-helices, boasting sturdy cross-links between nonnatural amino acid side chains, just might change that. This class of stabilized peptides can regulate signaling pathways to subvert cancer. They also appear to overcome several of the usual problems that have hampered the development of peptide drugs.

Stapled peptides are locked into the biologically active shape, enabling the drug to penetrate the cell and bind tightly to protein surfaces. Last fall, Harvard chemical biologist and Aileron’s scientific founder Gregory L. Verdine and colleagues showed the helix-stabilizing strategy could be used to turn off the Notch transcription factor complex, a master cell regulator in cancer that has gone awry in over half of patients with a certain type of leukemia. It was the first direct inhibitor of the Notch complex.

Aileron gets $25 million upfront and R&D funding, but could score a bounty in milestones if drug candidates against all five targets reach the market. Roche was clearly keeping close tabs on the technology. The Swiss pharma firm’s corporate venture fund was one of several big pharma funds to invest in the $40 million round raised by Aileron last summer.