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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Emma Walmsley, GlaxoSmithKline CEO (Kevin Dietsch/Pool via CNP/Alamy)

Glax­o­SmithK­line hus­tles the 7th PD-1 past the fin­ish line with Jem­per­li. But how big will up­take be?

Everything came up sevens for GlaxoSmithKline on Thursday as the pharma notched the seventh PD-1 approval seven years after the first such drugs were OK’ed in Keytruda and Opdivo. But will it bring GSK good fortune?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to dostarlimab, to be branded Jemperli, to treat recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer in a specific subset of patients following platinum-based chemo. It’s a drug that came to GSK through its buyout of Tesaro, which it snapped up for $5.1 billion back in December 2018.