David Liu (Casey Atkins Photography courtesy Broad Institute)

In­tel­lia an­nounced a new tool for gene edit­ing. Aca­d­e­mics said they rewrote his­to­ry

Alex­is Ko­mor

David Liu, the Har­vard bio­chemist, was sit­ting in a meet­ing last week when his phone start­ed buzzing re­peat­ed­ly.

Un­be­knownst to him, min­utes pri­or the CRISPR com­pa­ny In­tel­lia had fin­ished un­veil­ing their ap­proach to base edit­ing at a Cold Spring Har­bor Lab con­fer­ence. First pi­o­neered by Liu and his lab in 2016, the method al­lows you to change in­di­vid­ual DNA bases with­out break­ing the dou­ble he­lix, an ad­vance that could prove crit­i­cal for treat­ing a long list of can­cers and ge­net­ic dis­eases.

In­tel­lia, though, didn’t cite or ac­knowl­edge any of Liu’s work, or any of dozens of pa­pers pro­duced by his stu­dents and out­side re­searchers. Im­me­di­ate­ly af­ter the ses­sion closed, for­mer grad­u­ate stu­dents, post­docs and mem­bers of oth­er labs start­ed mes­sag­ing Liu, ask­ing if he had seen the ap­par­ent snub.

Liu re­spond­ed pub­licly on Twit­ter four days lat­er, call­ing out In­tel­lia for fail­ing to ac­knowl­edge the two then-post­docs, Alex­is Ko­mor and Nicole Gaudel­li, who led the base edit­ing stud­ies. He then named 37 oth­er re­searchers he said con­tributed to re­search In­tel­lia “pre­sent­ed as its own.”

In an in­ter­view Tues­day, Liu said he hoped In­tel­lia suc­ceed­ed in bring­ing ther­a­pies for pa­tients. But he ar­gued the com­pa­ny’s de­ci­sion to not cite ear­ly pa­pers could be par­tic­u­lar­ly dam­ag­ing to young sci­en­tists’ ca­reers.

“Whether some­body cites a pa­per I au­thored or not at a con­fer­ence prob­a­bly isn’t go­ing to af­fect my ca­reer,” he said. “But it could re­al­ly im­pact the op­por­tu­ni­ties for a grad­u­ate stu­dent or a post doc, or a re­cent grad­u­ate stu­dent or a post doc whose sci­en­tif­ic ac­com­plish­ments may large­ly [be that] work.”

Sam Stern­berg

In­tel­lia nev­er claimed in the pre­sen­ta­tion, a video of which was ob­tained by End­points News, to have in­vent­ed base edit­ing. But Sam Stern­berg, a gene edit­ing re­searcher at Co­lum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty un­af­fil­i­at­ed with Liu or his com­pa­nies, said In­tel­lia pre­sent­ed their ed­i­tors as new and ex­cit­ing with­out cred­it­ing Liu or ex­plain­ing how the ed­i­tors were dif­fer­ent.

It seemed “there was a cal­cu­lat­ed in­tent to present these as new,” Stern­berg, who at­tend­ed the con­fer­ence, said in an in­ter­view.

In­tel­lia de­clined to make the em­ploy­ees who made the pre­sen­ta­tion avail­able for an in­ter­view. In an emailed state­ment, they ac­knowl­edged “Liu’s pi­o­neer­ing work” but said, “We be­lieve our base edit­ing sys­tem is dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed com­pared to oth­er sys­tems we are aware of, and for this pre­sen­ta­tion we met all re­quire­ments for da­ta dis­clo­sure as in­di­cat­ed by Cold Spring Har­bor Lab­o­ra­to­ry.”

A Cold Spring Har­bor Lab­o­ra­to­ry spokesper­son said they were made aware of the is­sue through so­cial me­dia and are re­view­ing the sit­u­a­tion with the com­mit­tee who or­ga­nized the meet­ing.

A screen­shot of In­tel­lia’s Chris­t­ian Dom­brows­ki walk­ing through their base ed­i­tor

Click on the im­age to see the full-sized ver­sion

The con­tro­ver­sy no­tably comes af­ter near­ly a decade of bit­ter dis­putes over who should re­ceive the cred­it and patents for in­vent­ing the first gen­er­a­tion of CRISPR gene edit­ing.

In 2016, when Broad In­sti­tute chief Er­ic Lan­der wrote a re­view ar­ti­cle on the his­to­ry of CRISPR, he was ac­cused by some of try­ing to rewrite his­to­ry in a way that min­i­mized Jen­nifer Doud­na and Em­manuelle Char­p­en­tier’s role and el­e­vat­ed the role of Broad re­searcher Feng Zhang. When the No­bel com­mit­tee picked Doud­na and Char­p­en­tier but not Zhang for the 2020 chem­istry award, it was read as the com­mit­tee’s ver­dict on who should claim cred­it.

Base edit­ing has large­ly been free of such strife, in part thanks to con­scious ef­forts by its lead­ing fig­ures. And nei­ther Liu nor Ko­mor are con­cerned about run­ning in­to in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty is­sues with In­tel­lia. In a state­ment, Beam Ther­a­peu­tics, the com­pa­ny Liu found­ed with Zhang and Mass Gen­er­al sci­en­tist Kei­th Joung, said they had “a strong lead­er­ship po­si­tion” in base edit­ing and “an ex­ten­sive patent port­fo­lio.”

The pair feared, how­ev­er, that In­tel­lia was rewrit­ing his­to­ry in a way that could be detri­men­tal to young re­searchers. Ko­mor, who start­ed her own lab at UC-San Diego af­ter leav­ing Har­vard, said the suc­cess of her new re­search group de­pends in part on oth­ers rec­og­niz­ing her grad­u­ate and post­doc work as im­por­tant.

“You have no idea how dif­fi­cult it is,” she said. “Any time I want to pub­lish some­thing, I need to lever­age my pre­vi­ous ac­com­plish­ments to get my foot in with this ed­i­tor, to tell this ed­i­tor, ‘I did this great work be­fore, re­mem­ber? So what I’m do­ing now is re­al­ly great too.'”

Al­ready, she said, she sees peo­ple on Twit­ter who are new to the field or who lack a strong sci­en­tif­ic back­ground talk­ing about a new in­ven­tion from In­tel­lia called a base ed­i­tor. “That’s sad to see,” she said.

In­tel­lia ti­tled the pre­sen­ta­tion, “Spe­cial Edi­tion: Ex­pand­ing In­tel­lia’s Tool­box with Base Edit­ing.” Chris­t­ian Dom­brows­ki, se­nior di­rec­tor of the biotech’s Gene Edit­ing Plat­form group, walked through the com­pa­ny’s CRISPR ef­forts, in­clud­ing for cell ther­a­py, be­fore ex­plain­ing that to “un­lock the full po­ten­tial of the T cells,” they might need new forms of gene edit­ing.

“So this was sort of us look­ing to the fu­ture and say­ing, ‘What is the tool that we are go­ing to need?'” Dom­brows­ki said.

He said they set­tled on a base ed­i­tor for the DNA base cy­to­sine. He walked through the well-es­tab­lished com­po­nents for such an ed­i­tor: a de­ac­ti­vat­ed Cas9 en­zyme that can bind to but not cut the DNA, di­rect­ed to the right lo­ca­tion by an RNA strand; an en­zyme called cy­to­sine deam­i­nase that can change a cy­to­sine base to a dif­fer­ent base; and a small pro­tein that blocks the body from cor­rect­ing that change.

Chris­t­ian Dom­brows­ki

Dom­brows­ki then pre­sent­ed a se­ries of slides show­ing how ef­fec­tive­ly their base ed­i­tor could ma­nip­u­late T cells and the ad­van­tages they of­fer over old­er CRISPR sys­tems. But he didn’t men­tion Liu or his lab’s work, or ex­plain how their ap­proach dif­fered from the ones he, Gaudel­li, Ko­mor or Kobe Uni­ver­si­ty’s Kei­ji Nishi­da laid out in 2016 and 2017 — a fact that didn’t es­cape Gaudel­li, who was tuned in­to the pre­sen­ta­tion.

In a sub­se­quent Q&A pe­ri­od, she asked in a mes­sage box how their ap­proach dif­fered, writ­ing, “I didn’t see any ref­er­ences to all the work that has al­ready been es­tab­lished.” Stern­berg, speak­ing by video, echoed her ques­tion.

In­tel­lia CSO Lau­ra Sepp-Loren­zi­no, who was mod­er­at­ing the ses­sion, read out the ques­tion. Dom­brows­ki de­murred.

“As you can imag­ine, as it stands to­day, we aren’t dis­clos­ing the com­po­si­tion of the base ed­i­tor that we’ve built,” he said. “Stay tuned.”

Nicole Gaudel­li

Stern­berg said in the in­ter­view that he’s got­ten used to com­pa­nies re­fus­ing to dis­close de­tails for con­fi­den­tial­i­ty rea­sons. And even as an aca­d­e­m­ic, he said, he of­ten has to choose what to present and what’s not yet ready to be dis­closed, be­cause CRISPR is such a hot­ly com­pet­i­tive field. But In­tel­lia’s pre­sen­ta­tion was un­usu­al.

“It was a bit sur­pris­ing that there was no at­tri­bu­tion,” he said. “These aca­d­e­m­ic and sci­en­tif­ic con­fer­ences are here to pro­mote sci­en­tif­ic ex­change and trans­par­ent ad­vance­ment of sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge.”

Most sci­en­tists in the gene edit­ing world know the pa­pers and aca­d­e­mics that es­tab­lished base edit­ing, Stern­berg said. But con­fer­ences are al­so at­tend­ed by non-aca­d­e­mics or peo­ple who are new to the field. They might come away from such a pre­sen­ta­tion think­ing In­tel­lia in­vent­ed a new form of edit­ing, as Ko­mor said she’s al­ready seen.

Liu echoed the con­cern. And he won­dered about how the var­i­ous pub­li­ca­tions and pre­sen­ta­tions would look years lat­er if ear­ly work goes un­no­ticed.

“We don’t want to rewrite his­to­ry,” Ko­mor said.

The Big Phar­ma dis­card pile; Lay­offs all around while some biotechs bid farewell; New Roche CEO as­sem­bles top team; and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

With earnings seasons in full swing, we’ve listened in on all the calls so you don’t have to. But news is popping up from all corners, so make sure you check out our other updates, too.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 158,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Raymond Stevens, Structure Therapeutics CEO

Be­hind Fri­day's $161M IPO: A star sci­en­tist, GPCR drug dis­cov­ery and a plan to chal­lenge phar­ma in di­a­betes

What does it take to pull off a $161 million biotech IPO these days?

In Structure Therapeutics’ case, it means having a star scientist co-founder paired with the computational drug discovery company Schrödinger, $198 million in private funding from blue-chip investors, almost six years of research work on G protein-coupled receptors and a slate of oral, small-molecule drugs, with an eye on the huge and growing diabetes and weight-loss market.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 158,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) (Francis Chung/E&E News/Politico via AP Images)

In­fla­tion re­bates in­com­ing: Wyden calls on CMS to move quick­ly as No­var­tis CEO pledges re­ver­sal

Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) this week sent a letter to the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking an update on how and when new inflation-linked rebates will take effect for drugs that see major price spikes.

The newly signed Inflation Reduction Act requires manufacturers to pay a rebate to Medicare when they increase drug prices faster than the rate of inflation.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 158,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Trodelvy notch­es a win in most com­mon form of breast can­cer

Following a promise last year to go “big and fast in breast cancer,” Gilead has secured a win for Trodelvy in the most common form.

The drug was approved to treat HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer patients who’ve already received endocrine-based therapy and at least two other systemic therapies for metastatic cancer, Gilead announced on Friday.

Trodelvy won its first indication in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer back in 2020, and has since added urothelial cancer to the list. HR-positive HER2-negative breast cancer accounts for roughly 70% of new breast cancer cases worldwide per year, according to senior VP of oncology clinical development Bill Grossman, and many patients develop resistance to endocrine-based therapies or worsen on chemotherapy.

Af­ter 13 years, Ramy Mah­moud steps in­to CEO seat at Opti­nose; Ru­pert Vessey set to ex­it Bris­tol My­ers in Ju­ly

After 13 years as president and COO at Optinose, Ramy Mahmoud has stepped into a new role as its CEO. He is taking the place of Peter Miller, who stepped down earlier this week, though Miller is still staying with the company as a consultant.

In 2010, the two business partners joined Optinose to take it in a new direction, transforming it from a delivery platform to product company. They previously worked together at Johnson & Johnson, when Miller was president at Janssen and Mahmoud headed medical affairs. Miller said after he learned about Optinose, “I did what I always do, which is find people smarter than me to talk with about the idea. And the first person I called was Ramy … and I said, ‘Hey, Ramy, what do you think of this technology?’”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 158,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ma­gen­ta halts stem cell work and may sell it­self fol­low­ing pa­tient death, clin­i­cal hold

Magenta Therapeutics said it is halting work on its stem cell transplant drug pipeline and may sell itself, a week after the company reported the death of a patient in an early stage trial of its antibody-drug conjugate.

The Cambridge, MA-based company said it will conduct a “review of strategic alternatives,” and that could include an “acquisition, merger, business combination, or other transaction.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 158,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Te­va drops out of in­dus­try trade group PhRMA

Following in AbbVie’s footsteps, Teva confirmed on Friday that it’s dropping out of the industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Teva didn’t give a reason for its decision to leave, saying only in a statement to Endpoints News that it annually reviews “effectiveness and value of engagements, consultants and memberships to ensure our investments are properly seated.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 158,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sanofi CFO Jean-Baptiste de Chatillon (L) and CEO Paul Hudson (Romuald Meigneux/Sipa via AP Images)

Sanofi sees downtick in flu sales as it preps for launch of RSV an­ti­body

Sanofi expects its RSV antibody jointly developed with AstraZeneca will be available next season, executive VP of vaccines Thomas Triomphe announced on the company’s quarterly call.

Beyfortus, also known as nirsevimab, was approved in the EU back in November and is currently under FDA review with an expected decision coming in the third quarter of this year. The news comes as the FDA plans to hold advisory committee meetings over the next couple months to review RSV vaccines from Pfizer and GSK.

Christophe Weber, Takeda CEO (Photographer: Shoko Takayasu/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Take­da fo­cus­es on ‘di­verse’ pipeline prospects on heels of two ac­qui­si­tions

After a whopping $4 billion asset buy from Nimbus Therapeutics, along with a $400 million deal with Hutchmed for a colorectal cancer drug, Takeda executives touted pipeline optimism on its latest earnings call this week.

That’s because the TYK2 inhibitor for psoriasis Takeda is getting from Nimbus, along with the Hutchmed fruquintinib commercialization outside of China, are just two of what it reports are 10 late-stage development programs of promising candidates.