Parkin­son's trans­plants emerge as stem cell pi­o­neer Jeanne Lor­ing joins R&D race

Jeanne Lor­ing hadn’t stud­ied Parkin­son’s in 22 years when she got an email from a lo­cal neu­rol­o­gist.

The neu­rol­o­gist, Melis­sa Houser, didn’t know Lor­ing had ever pub­lished on the dis­ease. She was just look­ing for a stem cell re­searcher who might hear her out. 

“I think I was just picked out of a hat,” Lor­ing told End­points News. 

At a meet­ing in Lor­ing’s Scripps Re­search of­fice, Houser and a Parkin­son’s nurse prac­ti­tion­er, Sher­rie Gould, asked her why there was so much re­search done in stem cell trans­plants for oth­er neu­rode­gen­er­a­tive dis­eases but not Parkin­son’s. They want­ed to know if she would work on one. 

“Fund­ing,” Lor­ing told them, get me the fund­ing — $200,000 — and I’m yours.

That was in 2011. The decade that en­sued saw sci­en­tists on three con­ti­nents and both North Amer­i­can coasts work, some­times col­lab­o­ra­tive­ly, to use new tech­nol­o­gy to res­ur­rect a vi­sion once dis­card­ed for rea­sons that ex­tend­ed well be­yond sci­en­tif­ic. Now, re­searchers are close­ly watch­ing for the re­sults of the first such trans­plants in Japan while Bay­er-backed Blue­Rock is await­ing on­ly a fi­nal FDA go-ahead to start its tri­als. And af­ter near­ly 10 years of pa­tient and pub­lic-backed re­search, Lor­ing is to­day launch­ing her com­pa­ny, As­pen Neu­ro­science, from stealth mode with a tech­nol­o­gy oth­ers saw as un­work­able and an eye to­ward its own tri­als next year.

Some are even toy­ing around, cau­tious­ly, with the word “cure,” even as oth­ers – in­clud­ing the first doc­tor to ex­e­cute a trans­plant for Parkin­son’s – see more ex­cit­ing de­vel­op­ments else­where.    

“We’ve de­vel­oped symp­to­matic treat­ments,” Blue­Rock de­vel­op­ment VP Mike Scott told End­points.  “But with this re­gen­er­a­tive med­i­cine ap­proach, you’re talk­ing about re­vers­ing lost func­tion. It’s trans­for­ma­tive. It has the po­ten­tial to be a func­tion­al cure.”

As­pen en­ters with one of the most fa­mous names in stem cell re­search. Lor­ing did her PhD on stem cells be­fore most Amer­i­cans had heard of them and was dubbed by the late sci­ence jour­nal­ist Bradley Fikes, “a stem cell evan­ge­list” for her work over the en­su­ing decades. In 2001, she de­vel­oped 9 of the em­bry­on­ic cell lines George W. Bush ap­proved for re­search. 

“She’s one of the god­moth­ers of stem cell ther­a­py,” Scott said. 

Ear­ly promis­es

Lor­ing’s first at­tempt at ap­ply­ing her cell work in biotech came at Hana Bi­o­log­ics in 1987, where she tried to graft dopamine neu­rons in­to rats en­gi­neered with Parkin­son’s. Parkin­son’s symp­toms are caused by these dopamine neu­rons de­cay­ing — which af­fect not on­ly plea­sure, but al­so move­ment and body con­trol — and it had been the­o­rized that a trans­plant could curb or even re­verse the dis­ease. The long­stand­ing car­bidopa lev­odopal, or “L-dopa,” treat­ments sup­ple­ment the lost dopamine but can vary in their ef­fec­tive­ness and don’t re­verse the dam­age.

“There’s no turn­ing back,” Lor­ing said. “The on­ly way to turn back the clock is to re­place those neu­rons.”

The ex­per­i­ment proved promis­ing, but the com­pa­ny failed. Lor­ing pub­lished a pa­per and moved on­to Gen­Pham and Alzheimer’s mice. 

At the same time, Curt Freed and Robert Breeze at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Col­orado im­plant­ed a pa­tient for the first time with hu­man fe­tus-de­rived dopamine cells. From 1988 through 1999, they im­plant­ed 61 pa­tients and pub­lished re­sults show­ing some pa­tient im­prove­ment, but the ther­a­py went nowhere. The prob­lem, Freed said, had lit­tle to do with ef­fi­ca­cy. 

“It was al­most im­pos­si­ble to find the right kind of hu­man fe­tal tis­sue from abor­tion,” Freed, who is not af­fil­i­at­ed with As­pen or Blue­Rock, told End­points. 

The tech­nol­o­gy for an al­ter­na­tive emerged in 2006, when Shinya Ya­mana­ka demon­strat­ed how any liv­ing cell could be chem­i­cal­ly in­duced in­to stem cell state, ef­fec­tive­ly un­teth­er­ing stem cell re­search from its po­lit­i­cal and sourc­ing quan­daries. In 2011, Lorenz Stud­er, founder of the Memo­r­i­al Sloan Ket­ter­ing Cen­ter for Stem Cell Bi­ol­o­gy, pub­lished a Na­ture pa­per show­ing how dopamine neu­rons from these in­duced hu­man stem cells, al­so called in­duced-pluripo­tent stem cells (iPS), could be en­graft­ed on­to rats. Stud­er would go on to build that work in­to Blue­Rock in 2016. 

Lor­ing’s work lead­ing up to that 2011 meet­ing had large­ly been in ge­nomics — in­clud­ing found­ing Ar­cos Bio­sciences, the fore­run­ner of di­a­betes cell trans­plant Vi­a­cyte — and af­ter Gould and peo­ple with Parkin­sons’ raised the nec­es­sary lab funds through a sum­mit of Mt. Kil­i­man­jaro, she took a dif­fer­ent ap­proach than Stud­er and top re­searchers in Japan and Swe­den took. 

Whose cells?

Lor­ing sought to do an au­tol­o­gous as op­posed to an al­lo­gene­ic trans­plant:  Rather than take cells from an­oth­er hu­man, build up a large bank and then im­plant a cer­tain num­ber in­to a pa­tient, she want­ed to take a pa­tient’s own skin cells, turn them in­to stem cells and then dopamine neu­rons and fi­nal­ly im­plant them in­to the brain. 

“We’re the on­ly com­pa­ny do­ing au­tol­o­gous,” Kim Kam­dar, a No­var­tis al­umn and part­ner at Do­main As­so­ci­ates, which pro­vid­ed seed fund­ing, told End­points. “The beau­ty in a way is the per­son­al­ized med­i­cine.”

There were sci­en­tif­ic and eco­nom­ic rea­sons, though, that no oth­er com­pa­ny pur­sued that goal. They may be part of why Blue­Rock launched with $245 mil­lion from Ver­sant Ven­tures and Bay­er, while Lor­ing’s work was kept go­ing through pa­tient fund­ing and emerges now with $6.5 mil­lion in seed cash. (They are hop­ing to close on a Se­ries A in the first quar­ter of 2020.) 

Blue­Rock over years de­vel­oped bil­lions of cells they keep in cryo­genic stor­age in a New York lab. That costs mon­ey, as As­pen ex­ecs not­ed, but Freed and Scott sug­gest­ed that hav­ing to build a new cell line for each pa­tient would, like in­di­vid­u­al­ized CAR-T ther­a­pies, cost far more and in­tro­duced more po­ten­tial pro­duc­tion prob­lems.

“You would need to have a high­ly ro­bust, bul­let­proof, cell repli­ca­tion sys­tem,” Scott said.

Lor­ing says she’s de­vel­oped that. Lean­ing on her ge­nomics back­ground and a ma­chine learn­ing, she says she’s built tech­nol­o­gy to stan­dard­ize the process. She ar­gues that she can save mon­ey by man­u­fac­tur­ing far few­er cell lines.  

The plat­form will al­so al­low them to pre­dict and pre­vent mu­ta­tions in the cell lines, Lor­ing said, and be­cause the cells are from the pa­tient, their body will ac­cept them.

“We won’t have to im­muno­sup­press them,” she said.

Scott ac­knowl­edged As­pen’s im­muno­sup­pres­sion ben­e­fits. Blue­Rock plans to im­muno­sup­press pa­tients in its first clin­i­cal tri­al. But it’s not ac­tu­al­ly clear that pa­tients need the ubiq­ui­tous post-trans­plant drugs for a stem cell brain pro­ce­dure be­cause the im­mune sys­tem op­er­ates dif­fer­ent­ly be­yond the blood-brain bar­ri­er. Blue­Rock hopes to even­tu­al­ly stop giv­ing the drugs.

Freed gave im­muno­sup­pres­sants to every oth­er pa­tient ear­ly on, and then stopped giv­ing them en­tire­ly. His team has done 15 au­top­sies of for­mer pa­tients, he said, and not one showed a trans­plant wiped out by re­jec­tion.

“Our stud­ies have shown im­muno­sup­pres­sion is not re­quired,” Freed said.

The key ques­tion, though – will any of this be ef­fec­tive – may take a while to an­swer.

Does it work?

At the end of last year, re­searchers at Ky­oto Uni­ver­si­ty im­plant­ed the first of sev­en pa­tients with al­lo­gene­ic stem cells. Sci­en­tists are still ea­ger­ly wait­ing for the pro­ce­dure’s re­sults as it can take up to 6 or even 12 months be­fore the im­plant cells will ful­ly con­nect with the oth­ers and pa­tients be­gin to show re­sponse.

That de­lay, among oth­er is­sues, has some in the Parkin­son’s com­mu­ni­ty look­ing to­wards oth­er so­lu­tions. David Sulz­er, a neu­ro­bi­ol­o­gy pro­fes­sor at Co­lum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty who last year re­ceived a grant to help re­search the role of au­toim­mu­ni­ty in Parkin­son’s, said trans­plants have po­ten­tial – one day.

“It’s go­ing to need a lot of work,” Sulz­er told End­points, not­ing skep­ti­cism about cell lines and where cells will be in­sert­ed.

Among oth­er pos­si­ble ob­sta­cles is the fact that re­searchers don’t un­der­stand what caus­es Parkin­son’s at the deep­est lev­el.

It’s pos­si­ble, Scott said, that what­ev­er killed the first neu­rons will kill the new ones.

Freed for his part has moved on. He says most of his re­search on trans­plants showed they work es­sen­tial­ly the same as an l-dopa. It didn’t re­turn lost func­tion but pumped out dopamine at a steady pace, sav­ing pa­tients from hav­ing symp­toms os­cil­late through­out the day. He’s moved on to phenyl­bu­tyrate, a drug he thinks can halt the dis­ease. Oth­er re­searchers are work­ing on gene ther­a­pies.

The new­er trans­plants, though, promise im­prove­ments on Freed’s work and pa­tients backed it hop­ing for a sig­nif­i­cant rem­e­dy in their life­time. Af­ter the Kil­i­man­jaro fundrais­er for Lor­ing, Gould found­ed Sum­mit for Stem Cell to con­tin­ue back­ing her. Jen­nifer Raub, who has Parkin­son’s, lat­er be­came pres­i­dent, turned it in­to a 501c(3) and once raised over $1 mil­lion in a night to help find some­thing that had broad­er, more con­sis­tent and long-last­ing ef­fects than the l-dopa she was tak­ing.

“I made a con­scious choice, as many do, to seek an al­ter­na­tive to car­bidopa lev­odopa rather than wait un­til I can no longer func­tion,” she wrote to End­points

For Lor­ing, now in her 60s, As­pen rep­re­sents a unique op­por­tu­ni­ty. Her work has changed med­i­cine, but so far she’s di­rect­ly de­vel­oped no new FDA-ap­proved drugs. She hopes to be­gin test­ing a po­ten­tial one next year. They’ve al­ready be­gun find­ing pa­tients.

“It would be the cul­mi­na­tion of my ca­reer,” she said, “and I’ve in­vest­ed most of my life.”

Inside FDA HQ (File photo)

The FDA just ap­proved the third Duchenne MD drug. And reg­u­la­tors still don’t know if any of them work

Last year Sarepta hit center stage with the FDA’s controversial reversal of its CRL for the company’s second Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug — after the biotech was ambushed by agency insiders ready to reject a second pitch based on the same disease biomarker used for the first approval for eteplirsen, without actual data on the efficacy of the drug.

On Wednesday the FDA approved the third Duchenne MD drug, based on the same biomarker. And regulators were ready to act yet again despite the lack of efficacy data.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 87,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Cell and Gene Con­tract Man­u­fac­tur­ers Must Em­brace Dig­i­ti­za­tion

The Cell and Gene Industry is growing at a staggering 30% CAGR and is estimated to reach $14B by 20251. A number of cell, gene and stem cell therapy sponsors currently have novel drug substances and products and many rely on Contract Development Manufacturing Organizations (CDMO) to produce them with adherence to stringent regulatory cGMP conditions. Cell and gene manufacturing for both autologous (one to one) and allogenic (one to many) treatments face difficult issues such as: a complex supply chain, variability on patient and cellular level, cell expansion count and a tight scheduling of lot disposition process. This complexity affects quality, compliance and accountability in the entire vein-to-vein process for critically ill patients.

Franz-Werner Haas, CureVac CEO

UP­DAT­ED: On the heels of a snap $1B raise, Cure­Vac out­lines plans to seek emer­gency OK for their Covid-19 vac­cine in a mat­ter of months

CureVac is going from being one of the quietest players in the race to develop a new vaccine to fight the worst public health crisis in a century to a challenger for the multibillion-dollar market that awaits the first vaccines to make it over the finish line. Typically low-key at a time of brash comments and incredibly ambitious development timelines from the leaders, CureVac now is jumping straight into the spotlight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 87,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

US gov­ern­ment re­port­ed­ly be­gins prepar­ing for Covid-19 chal­lenge tri­als. Are they eth­i­cal?

Controversial human challenge trials for potential Covid-19 vaccines reportedly have a new booster — the US government.

Scientists working for the government have begun manufacturing a strain of the novel coronavirus that could be used in such studies, Reuters reported Friday morning. The trials would enroll healthy volunteers to be vaccinated and then intentionally infected with a weakened coronavirus.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 87,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sanofi vet Kather­ine Bowdish named CEO of PIC Ther­a­peu­tics; As the world Terns: Liv­er dis­ease biotech makes ex­ec­u­tive changes

PIC Therapeutics hasn’t raised much money, yet. But the fledgling biotech has attracted a high-profile player to the helm.

The Boston-based biotech has handed the reins to Katherine Bowdish as its president and CEO. Bowdish will also join the board of directors of PIC. Bowdish joins from Sanofi where she served as VP and head of R&D strategy, as well as helping launch and lead Sanofi Sunrise, a venture investment and partnering vehicle at Sanofi. Before that, Bowdish held several exec roles at Permeon Biologics, Anaphore, Alexion Pharmaceuticals and Prolifaron (acquired by Alexion).

Charlie Silver (Mission Bio)

'We want to be every­where.' Mis­sion Bio rais­es $70M be­hind re­sis­tance-hunt­ing se­quenc­ing plat­form

Charlie Silver wants to look really, really closely at a lot of your cells. And he just got a lot of money to do so.

Silver’s startup, Mission Bio, raised $70 million in a Series C round Thursday led by Novo Holdings. The money, which brings Mission Bio to $120 million raised since its 2012 founding, will be used to advance the single-cell sequencing platform they built to detect early response or resistance to new cancer therapies.

Stéphane Bancel speaks to President Donald Trump at the White House meeting on March 2 (AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Mod­er­na of­fers steep dis­count in US sup­ply deal — but still takes the crown with close to $2.5B in vac­cine con­tracts

The US pre-order for Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine is in.

Operation Warp Speed is reserving $1.525 billion for 100 million doses of Moderna’s Phase III mRNA candidate, rounding out to about $15 per dose — including $300 million in incentive payments for timely delivery. Given that Moderna has a two-dose regimen, it’s good for vaccinating 50 million people. The US government also has the option to purchase another 400 million doses for a total of $6.6 billion, or $16.5 per dose.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 87,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Trevor Martin (Mammoth)

Eye­ing in-vi­vo edit­ing, Mam­moth li­cens­es Jen­nifer Doud­na’s new CRISPR en­zyme

Last month, Jennifer Doudna revealed in Science a new, “hyper-compact” CRISPR enzyme that was half the size of traditional CRISPR enzymes and could, she suspected, offer a new, more versatile tool for gene editing.

Now, the University of California-Berkeley has licensed that enzyme, known as Casφ, exclusively to a biotech startup she and two former students set up three years ago: Mammoth Biosciences. It’s the second new CRISPR protein Mammoth has licensed from Doudna’s lab, after they licensed Cas14 in 2019.

Clockwise from left: Canaccord Genuity principal Michelle Gilson, Canaccord Genuity CSO Brian Mueller and BioMarin CSO Hank Fuchs (Canaccord Genuity webcast)

Bio­Marin CSO diss­es ri­vals for the he­mo­phil­ia A gene ther­a­py crown: Way be­hind, fac­ing big re­cruit­ment chal­lenges and at best a .6 on the gen-one scale

The leader in the race to a hemophilia A gene therapy does not like to be compared unfavorably to the competition. And when their top execs do the comparing, don’t look for any modesty — BioMarin, they say, owns the lead.

As Factor VIII expression wanes over time, quite a few analysts have raised questions about the kind of future BioMarin’s gene therapy — a supposed once-and-done treatment — faces if it stops working. But just 7 days away from their PDUFA date, with high odds of success, the top execs clearly feel that they are way out front, while promising their rivals will discover there’s a tough slog ahead trying to pursue trials where large numbers of patients are ineligible for new therapies.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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