Ex­clu­sive: Ready to ex­it 'qui­et mode,' joint en­ti­ty Ven­tyx de­buts its im­mune mod­u­la­tor pipeline with $114M round

In the crazy world of biotech fi­nanc­ing, pre­co­cious star­tups are scor­ing big checks from in­vestors with some of­ten laugh­ably ear­ly da­ta. Now, a Cal­i­for­nia im­mune mod­u­la­tion play­er is ready to un­cloak with a nine-fig­ure down pay­ment in hand and an un­usu­al­ly ad­vanced pipeline.

Encini­tas-based Ven­tyx Bio­sciences has scored a $114 mil­lion eq­ui­ty in­vest­ment to try three dif­fer­ent im­mune mod­u­la­tor tar­gets in the clin­ic, one of which is al­ready squared up for a Phase II study in ul­cer­a­tive col­i­tis.

Part of a joint en­ti­ty weav­ing to­geth­er three New Sci­ence Ven­tures com­pa­nies work­ing on im­mune mod­u­la­tors, a re­designed Ven­tyx sports an S1P1 re­cep­tor mod­u­la­tor for IBD as well as a TYK2 in­hibitor the biotech will ini­tial­ly pit against Crohn’s dis­ease in an up­com­ing Phase I.

Ra­ju Mo­han

The de­ci­sion to un­cloak its pre­vi­ous­ly-un­der-wraps pipeline — what CEO Ra­ju Mo­han called a “qui­et mode,” rather than stealth — was an op­por­tunis­tic play for Ven­tyx spurred by in­vestor in­ter­est in what the team was work­ing on.

“Part of the goal of set­ting up the sin­gle com­pa­ny is to have sin­gle in­ter­est from in­vestors,” Mo­han told End­points News. “This was not a plan — we had a lot of in­bound in­ter­est in our port­fo­lio, and we felt that com­bin­ing these to­geth­er, both for the com­pa­ny and for in­vestors, would be re­al­ly at­trac­tive.”

The round is led by ven­Bio Part­ners, which will plant Richard Gaster and Aaron Roys­ton on­to the com­pa­ny’s board. Third Point’s Ji­gar Chok­sey will al­so join the board as part of the fi­nanc­ing round.

Mo­han, the founder and CEO of Al­ler­gan-ac­quired NASH play­er Akar­na Ther­a­peu­tics, said Ven­tyx’s two lead com­pounds and a third tar­get­ing the NL­RP3 in­flam­ma­some are “tru­ly dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed” in a space brim­ming with big-name com­peti­tors.

The fur­thest along of Ven­tyx’s pipeline is its S1P1 re­cep­tor mod­u­la­tor pro­gram — OPL-002 — which the joint en­ti­ty ab­sorbed from Op­pi­lan Phar­ma. The “pe­riph­er­al­ly-re­strict­ed” mol­e­cule was de­signed specif­i­cal­ly for IBD, un­like oth­er S1P1s re­pur­posed from mul­ti­ple scle­ro­sis ap­pli­ca­tions — think mol­e­cules like fin­golimod or ozan­i­mod — and de­signed to mod­u­late the blood-brain bar­ri­er.

That speci­fici­ty for IBD, par­tic­u­lar­ly ul­cer­a­tive col­i­tis where Ven­tyx is hop­ing for an ini­tial ap­proval, means Ven­tyx can be ex­treme­ly spe­cif­ic in the drug’s tar­get­ing to lim­it down­stream tox­i­c­i­ties, Mo­han said.

Mean­while, Ven­tyx is al­so gun­ning for a Phase I study for its TYK2 pro­gram, VTX-958, an im­port from the orig­i­nal Ven­tyx Bio­sciences formed in 2019 and tar­get­ing a range of im­munol­o­gy con­di­tions. The first of those, Mo­han said, is Crohn’s dis­ease, but the biotech has as­pi­ra­tions in pso­ri­a­sis, pso­ri­at­ic arthri­tis and lu­pus, to name a few.

VTX-958 is what’s known as an al­losteric TYK2, which can in the­o­ry in­hib­it down­stream sig­nal­ing to IL-12, IL-23 and Type I in­ter­fer­on cy­tokines linked to in­flam­ma­tion with­out the nasty side ef­fects of the pan-JAK in­hibitor class with which it shares a mech­a­nism of ac­tion. Re­searchers have strug­gled to de­vel­op a TYK2 that is far more se­lec­tive in its tar­get­ing than the JAKs — but Mo­han be­lieves al­losteric VTX-958 could prove a win­ner there.

“A tru­ly se­lec­tive TYK2 does not cross over in­to the JAK fam­i­ly — and that’s what we have,” he said. “We think it has the po­ten­tial to be best in class.”

Even if VTX-958 does keep chug­ging along, it’s like­ly to face at least one com­peti­tor.

In No­vem­ber, Bris­tol My­ers Squibb rolled out Phase III head-to-head ear­ly da­ta for its own TYK2 hope­ful deu­cravac­i­tinib show­ing the drug beat out no less a chal­lenger than block­buster Ote­zla in clear­ing pso­ri­a­sis pa­tients’ skin. It was an ear­ly re­ward for Bris­tol, which opt­ed to stick with deu­cravac­i­tinib and bail on Ote­zla as part of its merg­er with Cel­gene. Mean­while, even small play­ers like Neu­ron23 are in the game for the first FDA-ap­proved TYK2. The biotech scored a $113 mil­lion com­bined Se­ries A and B in De­cem­ber and is ad­vanc­ing a TYK2 it be­lieves can stave off neu­ro-in­flam­ma­tion.

On top of those two lead com­pounds, Ven­tyx al­so has a NL­RP3 mod­u­la­tor in the pre­clin­i­cal stage for pe­riph­er­al, CNS-pen­e­trant and tis­sue-se­lec­tive ap­pli­ca­tions, which could reach a broad range of ther­a­peu­tic ar­eas. The NL­RP3 in­flam­ma­some, a key sig­nal­ing pro­tein in the in­nate im­mune sys­tem, re­ceived a big boost as an an­ti­body tar­get for CV and CNS fol­low­ing No­var­tis’ read­out from its CAN­TOS study in 2017 show­ing its IL-1be­ta block­er Ilaris sig­nif­i­cant­ly re­duced CV risks.

Ven­tyx’s pro­gram, ZMG-2735, which tar­gets NL­RP3 to reg­u­late down­stream IL-1be­ta cy­tokines, is “very close” to the clin­ic, Mo­han said, with­out of­fer­ing time­lines.

With its slate stacked, Mo­han said Ven­tyx was im­me­di­ate­ly fo­cused on get­ting its clin­i­cal pro­grams through the next cou­ple years — but could be open in the fu­ture to cap­i­tal­iz­ing on the ris­ing tide of biotech val­u­a­tions, whether that’s an IPO, re­verse merg­er or oth­er­wise.

“We’re well fund­ed, we can take all these com­pounds through proof of con­cept for the next cou­ple of years, we’ve got a bunch of re­al­ly ex­cit­ing dis­cov­ery pro­grams — so hon­est­ly our laser fo­cus is on build­ing this com­pa­ny,”  he said. “That is the near term goal, but hav­ing said that we will look at all op­por­tu­ni­ties whether they’re fi­nanc­ing or strate­gic at the ap­pro­pri­ate time.”

Ven­Bio, Third Point and New Sci­ence were joined by new in­vestors in the round, in­clud­ing RTW In­vest­ments, LP, Janus Hen­der­son In­vestors, Welling­ton Man­age­ment, Or­biMed, Sur­vey­or Cap­i­tal (a Citadel com­pa­ny), Far­al­lon Cap­i­tal, Vi­vo Cap­i­tal, Lo­gos Cap­i­tal, Qim­ing Ven­ture Part­ners USA and Cor­morant As­set Man­age­ment.

Qual­i­ty Con­trol in Cell and Gene Ther­a­py – What’s Re­al­ly at Stake?

In early 2021, Bluebird Bio was forced to suspend clinical trials of its gene therapy for sickle cell disease after two patients in the trial developed cancer. As company scientists rushed to assess whether there was any causal link between the therapy and the cancer cases, Bluebird’s stock value plummeted – as did those of multiple other biopharma companies developing similar therapies.

While investigations concluded that the gene therapy was unlikely to have caused cancer, investors and the public may be more skittish regarding the safety of gene and cell therapies after this episode. This recent example highlights how delicate the fields of cell and gene therapy remain today, even as they show great promise.

Brad Bolzon (Versant)

Ver­sant pulls the wraps off of near­ly $1B in 3 new funds out to build the next fleet of biotech star­tups. And this new gen­er­a­tion is built for speed

Brad Bolzon has an apology to offer by way of introducing a set of 3 new funds that together pack a $950 million wallop in new biotech creation and growth.

“I want to apologize,” says the Versant chairman and managing partner, laughing a little in the intro, “that we don’t have anything fancy or flashy to tell you about our new fund. Same team, around the same amount of capital, same investment strategy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But then there’s the flip side, where everything has changed. Or at least speeded into a relative blur. Here’s Bolzon:

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Law pro­fes­sors call for FDA to dis­close all safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta for drugs

Back in early 2018 when Scott Gottlieb led the FDA, there was a moment when the agency seemed poised to release redacted complete response letters and other previously undisclosed data. But that initiative never gained steam.

Now, a growing chorus of researchers are finding that a dearth of public data on clinical trials and pharmaceuticals means industry and the FDA cannot be held accountable, two law professors from Yale and New York University write in an article published Wednesday in the California Law Review.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Novavax CEO Stanley Erck at the White House in 2020 (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

As fears mount over J&J and As­traZeneca, No­vavax en­ters a shaky spot­light

As concerns rise around the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, global attention is increasingly turning to the little, 33-year-old, productless, bankruptcy-flirting biotech that could: Novavax.

In the now 16-month race to develop and deploy Covid-19 vaccines, Novavax has at times seemed like the pandemic’s most unsuspecting frontrunner and at times like an overhyped also-ran. Although they started the pandemic with only enough cash to last 6 months, they leveraged old connections and believers into $2 billion and emerged last summer with data experts said surpassed Pfizer and Moderna. They unveiled plans to quickly scale to 2 billion doses. Then they couldn’t even make enough material to run their US trial and watched four other companies beat them to the finish line.

FDA of­fers scathing re­view of Emer­gent plan­t's san­i­tary con­di­tions, em­ploy­ee train­ing af­ter halt­ing pro­duc­tion

The FDA wrapped up its inspection of Emergent’s troubled vaccine manufacturing plant in Baltimore on Tuesday, after halting production there on Monday. By Wednesday morning, the agency already released a series of scathing observations on the cross contamination, sanitary issues and lack of staff training that caused the contract manufacturer to dispose of millions of AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine doses.

Jenny Rooke (Genoa Ventures)

Ear­ly Zymer­gen in­vestor Jen­ny Rooke re­flects on 'chimeras' in biotech, what it takes to spot a $500M gem

When Jenny Rooke first heard of Zymergen back in 2014, she knew she was looking at something different and exciting. The Emeryville, CA biotech held the promise of blending biology and technology to solve a huge unmet need for cost-effective chemicals — of all things — and a stellar founding team to boot.

But back then, West Coast venture capitalists didn’t see in Zymergen the one thing they were looking for in a winning biotech: therapeutic potential. Rooke, however, saw an opportunity and made her bets. Seven years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Saurabh Saha at Endpoints News' #BIO19

On the heels of $250M launch, Centes­sa barges ahead with an IPO to fu­el its 10-in-1 Medicxi pipeline

Francesco De Rubertis made no secret of IPO plans for Centessa, his 10-in-1 legacy play. Barely two months later, the S-1 is in.

The hot-off-the-press filing depicts the same grand vision that the longtime VC touted when he did the rounds in February: Take the asset-centric mindset that he’s been preaching at Medicxi over the years, and roll up a bunch of biotech upstarts, with unrelated risk profiles, into 1 pharma company that can carry on the development at scale.

From left: James Brown, Michael Chambers, John Ballantyne

Alde­vron founders back a biotech start­up that's look­ing to end the moral de­bate over cell lines once and for all

For millions of Catholics around the world, the development of new vaccines to combat Covid-19 has sparked a moral dilemma. All the approved vaccines in use relied — in some fashion — on cell lines that were derived from aborted fetal tissue.

While church leaders accepted the vaccines and recommended their use to end the pandemic, a number also highlighted their preference for the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna over the J&J and AstraZeneca shots, which they noted were more heavily dependent on cell lines that they found morally objectionable.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images)

Sen­a­tors to NIH: Do more to pro­tect US bio­med­ical re­search from for­eign in­flu­ence

Although Thursday’s Senate health committee hearing was focused on how foreign countries and adversaries might be trying to steal or negatively influence biomedical research in the US, the only country mentioned by the senators and expert witnesses was China.

Committee chair Patty Murray (D-WA) made clear in her opening remarks that the US cannot “let the few instances of bad actors” overshadow the hard work of the many immigrant researchers in the US, many of which have won Nobel prizes for their work. But she also said, “There is more the NIH can be doing here.”