Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nature is a British multidisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.[1] It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports and is ascribed an impact factor of 40.137 , making it one of the world's top academic journals.[2][3] It is one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.[3][4]
"Nature" is just such a journal
Research Spotlights OncoSec's Next Generation Electroporation (EP) Platform
SAN DIEGO, March 12, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- OncoSec Medical Incorporated (OncoSec) (NASDAQ:ONCS), a company developing intratumoral cancer immunotherapies, today announced that its manuscript, "Improving therapeutic efficacy of IL-12 intratumoral gene electrotransfer," has been published in Nature Gene Therapy. The research, led by a team of OncoSec scientists, evolves the company's current clinical EP platform to improve the therapeutic efficacy of IL-12 intratumoral gene electrotransfer through novel plasmid design and modified parameters.
"In cancer therapy, transforming an immunologically 'cold' tumor to 'hot' offers the potential to treat a number of tumors and cancer indications that are otherwise unfavorable to current standards of care," said Dr. Christopher Twitty, Chief Scientific Officer of OncoSec. "Our ImmunoPulse® technology employs EP to enable the delivery of DNA-based IL-12 directly into tumor cells, which reshapes the tumor microenvironment leading to the generation of systemic, tumor antigen-specific T cells. The research published in Nature Gene Therapy highlights this capability and the potential for improving the efficacy and anti-tumor response by optimizing key components of the technology platform."
Researchers sought to improve the efficacy and systemic anti-tumor response of OncoSec's clinical IT-pIL12-EP platform by modifying in vivo electroporation conditions and enhancing plasmid-derived IL-12p70 expression. The improved IL-12 therapeutic platform was evaluated in vitro and in vivo using murine syngeneic tumor models. Findings show that modifications to the electroporation parameters, including lowering the electric field strength (low voltage) combined with a longer pulse length, significantly increase the transfection efficiency of intratumoral electroporation.
"With both preclinical models and clinical trials, EP has been used to successfully deliver therapeutic genes via non-viral vectors (gene electrotransfer) or to increase uptake of chemotherapeutic drugs into tumor cells (electrochemotherapy)," said Dr. David Canton, senior author and Head of Research & Development at OncoSec. "The newly developed IT-pIL12-P2A-EP platform marks a significant improvement of our electroporation-based cancer immunotherapy."
To read the full article, please visit https://www.nature.com/articles/s41434-018-0006-y.
About OncoSec Medical Incorporated
OncoSec is a biotechnology company developing DNA-based intratumoral immunotherapies with an investigational technology, ImmunoPulse®, for the treatment of cancer. ImmunoPulse is designed to enhance the local delivery and uptake of DNA-based immune-targeting agents, such as plasmid encoded IL-12 (tavokinogene telseplasmid or "tavo"). In Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, ImmunoPulse® IL-12 has demonstrated a favorable safety profile, evidence of anti-tumor activity in the treatment of various solid tumors, and the potential to reach beyond the site of local treatment to initiate a systemic immune response. OncoSec's lead program, ImmunoPulse IL-12, is currently in clinical development for metastatic melanoma and triple-negative breast cancer. The program's current focus is on the significant unmet medical need in patients with melanoma who are refractory or have relapsed on anti-PD-1 therapies. In addition to tavo, the Company is also identifying and developing new immune-targeting agents for use with the ImmunoPulse platform. For more information, please visit www.oncosec.com.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as "can," "may," "will," "suggest," "look forward to," "potential," "understand," and similar references to future periods.
Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance. Instead, they are based on management's current preliminary expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties, which may cause our results to differ materially and adversely from the statements contained herein. Potential risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those predicted include, among others, the following: uncertainties inherent in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, such as the ability to enroll patients in clinical trials and the risk of adverse events; unexpected new data, safety and technical issues; our ability to raise additional funding necessary to fund continued operations; and the other factors discussed in OncoSec's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. OncoSec disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect new information, events or circumstances after the date they are made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
OncoSec Announces Publication In Nature Gene Therapy Demonstrating Efficacy Of IL-12 Intratumoral Gene Electrotransfer
About 3,700,000 shares in institutional buying since the first of the year.
Good morning TJ, yeah I received one a few months back. There a Lidget broker that’s been around for about 25 years – – I just don’t like all the personal information that they ask for in order to get their Oncosec information. So I’m Steering clear of it.
Looks like Point 72 Capital Advisors, Inc. just went on record with a 13G for +5% ownership with 2,180,000 shares.
My two cents worth is to look for something at ASCO in Chicago this year The first week in June.
OncoSec's adaptability is what has made them so exciting to watch when it came to watching the Birth of Immunotherapy. But what I am trying to be realistic about is what I see as the setting back the clock from working at a Phase 2b registration trial (which may be licensed on a limited basis) back to clinical development and mice trials. With regards to "tweaking the multi-gene contruct", learning to prime the immune system in the T-reg environment and evaluation the systemic administration of Affimer PD-L1---Does this not create a expectation that OncoSec will need at least a couple more years and a lot more "raises" before we reach that data point, partner or no partner?
I'm hangin' on here Hschlauch...my shares have been so diluted with potential profits cut in half over the 12 to 16 months. As an investor here since late 2012, I've have been impressed watching the science development from OncoSec's Electrochemotherapy with Bleomycin, adapting with the onset of immunotherapy with Interleukin 12, then on to combination with PD-1, and then to Multi-gene therapy (either as monotherapy and/or combination, and now the addition of incorporating PD-L1 synthetic affimers (administered locally and/or systemically) in combination with electroporated Tavo.
It appears that ImmunoPulse as an individual identity is being absorbed much like olive juice into a dirty martini with blue cheese stuffed olives (my personal favorite)--make for an entirely different cocktail. Where I am heading with this Hsch, is that I am literally watching another transition for oncosec that appears to rendering the PICSES trial as validation of one aspect functioning intratumorally, but will not be able to keep up the quickly advancing immuno science that now is including the systemic and local administrations of affimers in conjunction with local and systemic administrations of PD-1.
I saw a video of an Eagles fan running to catch his train pulling away from the station, only to run smack into a support post. I don't think we're gonna do that, but now picture the old west immunotherapy PD-1 train pulling away from the station, and OncoSec chasing on foot with Bleomycin, then hops on the ImmunoPulse horse and catches up to the train, but none of the big pharma box car doors are open to jump into. I'm not saying we are at the caboose for that final opportunity to jump on to the ass-end of the train, BUT a lot seems to be changing. With the multiple directions being initiated, this seems to set a future of share offerings that could reach 100 million outstanding, severely diluting my investment potential.
I think Melanoma PICSES data going to find itself minimized to melanoma, while OncoSec extends their time line out 2 years as they develop Multi-gene + PD-1 + Affimer PD-L1 + Local + systemic = all at clinical level of development with no clear understanding of when Phase development will begin. I believe the science is definitely on the right track in their development, I'm just trying to be realistic about future time table needing to be reformulated so I can more accurately adjust my expectations as I Waitforit!
What say you...
And Here is an example of needing to move faster
Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice
Activating T cells in tumors eliminated even distant metastases in mice, Stanford researchers found. Lymphoma patients are being recruited to test the technique in a clinical trial.
JAN 31 2018
Man in a lab coat in the foreground with a woman in the background working on a computer
Ronald Levy (left) and Idit Sagiv-Barfi led the work on a possible cancer treatment that involves injecting two immune-stimulating agents directly into solid tumors.
Steve Fisch
Injecting minute amounts of two immune-stimulating agents directly into solid tumors in mice can eliminate all traces of cancer in the animals, including distant, untreated metastases, according to a study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
The approach works for many different types of cancers, including those that arise spontaneously, the study found.
The researchers believe the local application of very small amounts of the agents could serve as a rapid and relatively inexpensive cancer therapy that is unlikely to cause the adverse side effects often seen with bodywide immune stimulation.
“When we use these two agents together, we see the elimination of tumors all over the body,” said Ronald Levy, MD, professor of oncology. “This approach bypasses the need to identify tumor-specific immune targets and doesn’t require wholesale activation of the immune system or customization of a patient’s immune cells.”
One agent is currently already approved for use in humans; the other has been tested for human use in several unrelated clinical trials. A clinical trial was launched in January to test the effect of the treatment in patients with lymphoma.
Levy, who holds the Robert K. and Helen K. Summy Professorship in the School of Medicine, is the senior author of the study, which was published Jan. 31 in Science Translational Medicine. Instructor of medicine Idit Sagiv-Barfi, PhD, is the lead author.
‘Amazing, bodywide effects’
Levy is a pioneer in the field of cancer immunotherapy, in which researchers try to harness the immune system to combat cancer. Research in his laboratory led to the development of rituximab, one of the first monoclonal antibodies approved for use as an anticancer treatment in humans.
Some immunotherapy approaches rely on stimulating the immune system throughout the body. Others target naturally occurring checkpoints that limit the anti-cancer activity of immune cells. Still others, like the CAR T-cell therapy recently approved to treat some types of leukemia and lymphomas, require a patient’s immune cells to be removed from the body and genetically engineered to attack the tumor cells. Many of these approaches have been successful, but they each have downsides — from difficult-to-handle side effects to high-cost and lengthy preparation or treatment times.
“All of these immunotherapy advances are changing medical practice,” Levy said. “Our approach uses a one-time application of very small amounts of two agents to stimulate the immune cells only within the tumor itself. In the mice, we saw amazing, bodywide effects, including the elimination of tumors all over the animal.”
Cancers often exist in a strange kind of limbo with regard to the immune system. Immune cells like T cells recognize the abnormal proteins often present on cancer cells and infiltrate to attack the tumor. However, as the tumor grows, it often devises ways to suppress the activity of the T cells.
Levy’s method works to reactivate the cancer-specific T cells by injecting microgram amounts of two agents directly into the tumor site. (A microgram is one-millionth of a gram). One, a short stretch of DNA called a CpG oligonucleotide, works with other nearby immune cells to amplify the expression of an activating receptor called OX40 on the surface of the T cells. The other, an antibody that binds to OX40, activates the T cells to lead the charge against the cancer cells. Because the two agents are injected directly into the tumor, only T cells that have infiltrated it are activated. In effect, these T cells are “prescreened” by the body to recognize only cancer-specific proteins.
Cancer-destroying rangers
Some of these tumor-specific, activated T cells then leave the original tumor to find and destroy other identical tumors throughout the body.
The approach worked startlingly well in laboratory mice with transplanted mouse lymphoma tumors in two sites on their bodies. Injecting one tumor site with the two agents caused the regression not just of the treated tumor, but also of the second, untreated tumor. In this way, 87 of 90 mice were cured of the cancer. Although the cancer recurred in three of the mice, the tumors again regressed after a second treatment. The researchers saw similar results in mice bearing breast, colon and melanoma tumors.
I don’t think there’s a limit to the type of tumor we could potentially treat, as long as it has been infiltrated by the immune system.
Mice genetically engineered to spontaneously develop breast cancers in all 10 of their mammary pads also responded to the treatment. Treating the first tumor that arose often prevented the occurrence of future tumors and significantly increased the animals’ life span, the researchers found.
Finally, Sagiv-Barfi explored the specificity of the T cells by transplanting two types of tumors into the mice. She transplanted the same lymphoma cancer cells in two locations, and she transplanted a colon cancer cell line in a third location. Treatment of one of the lymphoma sites caused the regression of both lymphoma tumors but did not affect the growth of the colon cancer cells.
“This is a very targeted approach,” Levy said. “Only the tumor that shares the protein targets displayed by the treated site is affected. We’re attacking specific targets without having to identify exactly what proteins the T cells are recognizing.”
The current clinical trial is expected to recruit about 15 patients with low-grade lymphoma. If successful, Levy believes the treatment could be useful for many tumor types. He envisions a future in which clinicians inject the two agents into solid tumors in humans prior to surgical removal of the cancer as a way to prevent recurrence due to unidentified metastases or lingering cancer cells, or even to head off the development of future tumors that arise due to genetic mutations like BRCA1 and 2.
“I don’t think there’s a limit to the type of tumor we could potentially treat, as long as it has been infiltrated by the immune system,” Levy said.
The work is an example of Stanford Medicine’s focus on precision health, the goal of which is to anticipate and prevent disease in the healthy and precisely diagnose and treat disease in the ill.
The study’s other Stanford co-authors are senior research assistant and lab manager Debra Czerwinski; professor of medicine Shoshana Levy, PhD; postdoctoral scholar Israt Alam, PhD; graduate student Aaron Mayer; and professor of radiology Sanjiv Gambhir, MD, PhD.
Levy is a member of the Stanford Cancer Institute and Stanford Bio-X.
Gambhir is the founder and equity holder in CellSight Inc., which develops and translates multimodality strategies to image cell trafficking and transplantation.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant CA188005), the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Boaz and Varda Dotan Foundation and the Phil N. Allen Foundation.
Stanford’s Department of Medicine also supported the work.
Brad, since the PICSES trial, OncoSec is beginning "stuff" with Multi-gene, TNBC, and the latest--initiating work with Avacta's affimer synthetic PD-L1. $,$,$,$
Hey Jeff, I noticed in the video set a target for the trial is still being kept confidential – – I’m guessing they’re waiting for that before they really hyped it up?
Hschlauch, I’m trying to understand the benefits of an Affimer, it sounds like it is a synthetic antibiotic that’s engineered to be much smaller and easier to be injected into self in a more stable, non-toxic, and biologically neutral way. Avacta CO believes it should be cost saving for both production and the amount of PDL one needed at the injection site, well potential he producing greater drugs through the cell.
When I listened to the chief officer Alastair, he said OncoSec will be taking their Affimer and conducting the Research and data collection. From that, I would hazard to guess that this is a move made by Oncosec to even jump ahead of PD one therapy – – if you can imagine that?
HSCHLAUCH, is this another way of saying that OncoSec’s Multigene mouse trail shows less potential down Avacta’s Affimer’s platform? Because it sounds like they already have the science for constructing multiple proteins?
Video with CEO of Avacta about OncoSec collaboration.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0ahUKEwjyzKWs4evYAhXDneAKHVY6AnsQqOcBCEQwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.proactiveinvestors.co.uk%2Fcompanies%2Fstocktube%2F8645%2Favacta-enters-significant-partnership-with-oncosec-medical-8645.html&usg=AOvVaw2DGCzp3ZSzMwuXLv6ywWgI
From UK,
Interest in Avacta’s Affimer technology continues to grow as biotech unveils latest research partnership
09:55 22 Jan 2018
This time it is with OncoSec Medical, which wants to use its own gene delivery platform to deliver Avacta’s Affimers into tumour cells
cell in the body
pdf icon Download Avacta Group Plc
Capital Network report here
Protein drugs such as Affimers can be delivered to a patient by injection or cells in the body can be made to make the protein if the DNA blueprint of the protein can be placed into the cells
The interest in Avacta Group Plc’s (LON:AVCT) Affimer technology continues to grow as the junior biotech announced another collaboration agreement on Monday, this time with OncoSec Medical Inc (NASDAQ:ONCS).
Last week chief executive Alastair Smith said he had spoken with a lot of companies at a recent conference which were keen on teaming up with his firm.
Avacta is a pioneer of Affimer technology - small, engineered proteins that are capable of binding specific molecular targets, in a similar way to antibodies.
OncoSec, on the other hand, has developed a gene delivery technology called ImmunoPulse which it wants to use to deliver Affimers - including Avacta’s PD-L1 inhibitor - into tumour cells and other tissues.
The companies plan to then demonstrate efficacy of the Affimers in a relevant in vivo tumour model.
‘Potentially very large opportunity’
“Avacta is receiving a lot of interest in the Affimer platform for gene delivery and this is the third collaboration in this hugely important area following our partnerships with Moderna Therapeutics and FIT Biotech,” said Smith.
“This is potentially a very large opportunity for Avacta and a successful outcome of the collaborative work with OncoSec would not only create the potential for the two companies to consider future co-developments but would also support Affimer licensing deals more widely in this rapidly growing field.”
Both Avacta and OncoSec will bear their own internal costs, while any third-party costs will be shared, although they are expected to be minimal.
Broker: ‘Avacta building momentum’
“Combining Avacta’s Affimers with OncoSec's gene delivery technology should create assets for co-development and/or licensing,” said finnCap analyst Mark Brewer.
“It illustrates the interest in gene delivery, given the potential to reduce development timelines compared with those for a conventional therapeutic protein.
“No change to forecasts or target price, but once again this illustrates the broadening utility of Affimers and the increasing interest shown by third-party pharma who see the potential of the Affimer platform.”
Shares nudged 1.2% higher to 67.3p on Monday morning.
I read a couple of article about our new guy, "Mr Mayes" that is heartening when it comes to $$ raising and dealing making. We are all familiar with the sentence from the PR put out by OncoSec saying,
Hschlauch, do you think that would happen do to an IND application or the creation of an investigator sponsored trial?
I didn’t see anything new other than better graphics… However I did notice the absence of discussing anything about the new multigene polycystronic Interleukin 12 immuno modulator.
Can't say I've ever seen an actual Site advertising the PISCES trial.
https://www.piscesclinicaltrial.com/
HAPPY NEW YEAR YA’LL! Lookin’ forward to seeing great things from the OncoSec Team this year...
—many blessings
No I haven't HC, you believe Carter Terry is selling ONCS as a company through phone call solicitation?
June 05, 2017, Top 10 U.S. Biopharma Clusters
GEN’s Annual Ranking Counts Down the Nation’s Most Nurturing Regions
This is why I think CEO is in NJ:
#10. Chicagoland
The region rounds out the Top 10 in NIH funding (713 awards totaling about $252.5 million), lab space (3.5 million square feet), and VC funding (five deals totaling $69 million in 2016), but fares better in patents (1,143) and best on employment (53,054 jobs, including 29,230 within Chicago’s Illinois Medical District). This year’s VC numbers should be much better; while MoneyTree Report recorded no biotech VC deals in Q1, a single company nearly equaled last year’s deal volume in May. Iterum Therapeutics closed a $65 million Series B financing whose proceeds will help it develop its first product candidate sulopenem, an antibiotic designed to treat Gram-negative multidrug-resistant infections.
Improving the region’s biopharma ecosystem will be among the priorities of James E. Audia, CSO of Constellation Pharmaceuticals, who on May 25 was named the new executive director of the Chicago Biomedical Consortium, effective August 1. The consortium was formed to stoke collaboration among researchers at Northwestern University, The University of Chicago, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and other institutions.
In March, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science said it will build a $50 million Innovation and Research Park with labs and an incubator for biopharma startups, and space for larger global life sciences companies. Ground for the 100,000 square-foot addition to the campus’ north side is set to be broken in September, with the project completed by summer 2019.
#9. Los Angeles / Orange County
A milestone in the cluster-building effort of the City of Angels and surrounding Southland region is set to occur soon: Site clearing has begun for a 20,000-square-foot incubator on the campus of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute (LABioMed), funded by a $3 million county grant spearheaded by L.A. County Board of Supervisors Chairman Mark Ridley-Thomas. The incubator is set to open next year. Lab space remains the L.A. region’s biggest challenge, as it ranks 11th among top U.S. clusters with just over 2 million square feet, less than the other nine regions on this list and the Denver region. Also in May, LABioMed since it joined with UCLA to sell royalty rights to Allergan’s Kybella® (deoxycholic acid), the first and only FDA-approved injectable drug for submental fullness, for an undisclosed price.
Basic research is among strengths of the region, which ranks seventh in patents (1,479), and ninth in NIH funding (806 awards totaling $337.4 million). Those numbers can be expected to grow, as startup accelerator Make in LA joined LabLaunch last year to create a new bioscience-focused lab at Make in LA’s Chatsworth, CA, campus, with plans to create the first early-stage biotechnology incubator in the City of L.A. Where the region shines is in number of jobs, where it ranks second with 120,688, according to JLL—though regional life science industry group Biocom counts 117,879, consisting of 69,830 in L.A. County and 48,049 in Orange County.
#8. Raleigh-Durham, NC (includes Research Triangle Park, NC)
North Carolina’s mecca of biopharma yo-yoed in VC funding, finishing ninth in Q1 (seven deals totaling $14 million) after placing fourth in 2016 with 10 deals totaling $211 million. That figure includes the $47 million Series C financing won last year by Research Triangle Park (RTP)-based, small-molecule cancer therapy developer G1 Therapeutics. On May 16, G1 raised $105 million in gross proceeds through an initial public offering. Ten days later, RTP saw one of its largest real estate deals ever when GlaxoSmithKline sold 20 buildings totaling 1.1 million square feet within the campus for an undisclosed price to Parmer Innovation Centers; GSK will instead lease four buildings totaling 700,000 square feet. Also in May, Durham-based Parion Sciences licensed exclusive global rights for its Phase II dry eye treatment candidate P-321 to Shire for up to $535 million.
The region also ranks eighth in NIH funding (749 awards totaling $349 million) and 10th in patents (928)—but fared a little better in jobs, ranking ninth with 35,073 according to JLL, though the North Carolina Biotechnology Center counted 62,937 jobs statewide in 2016. The Center faces either a budget freeze at $13.6 million each year during 2017–19, or a 5% cut, in the approximately $23 billion biennial spending plan under discussion by state lawmakers at deadline.
#7. Seattle
If the region’s biopharma leaders needed another reason for worry, it came in April when advertisements emerged in Seattle urging life sciences companies to move their businesses and jobs to New York City. It was the latest affront to a region that has worked to bounce back from setbacks such as the departure of Amgen and state budget cuts that wiped out the R&D tax credit. Industry advocates are trying to restore the credit, but a bill to that effect hasn’t advanced beyond referral to committee. More positive news has emerged from a few growing companies: Nohla Therapeutics, spun out in 2015 from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, opened a new lab in Seattle’s Eastlake neighborhood in February, two months after winning $43.5 million in Series A financing, while Seattle Genetics in January disclosed plans to add 200 employees this year, bringing its workforce to 1,100-plus.
The region ranked fifth in VC (eight deals totaling $169 million in 2016), dipping in Q1 (two deals totaling $31 million) to sixth, same as its ranking for NIH funding (621 awards totaling $374.4 million) and patents (1,887). However, the Seattle area has already more than doubled its VC dollars this quarter, as Genoa Pharmaceuticals closed on a $62 million Series A financing in May. The region fares worse, however, in lab space (eighth with 4.6 million square feet) and especially jobs (11th with 24,320, according to JLL). A report released in February by Washington state’s Life Science & Global Health Advisory Council showed the life sciences industry has lost 3% of its jobs since 2011.
#6. Greater Philadelphia
The birthplace of American independence is increasingly a nurturing spot for early-stage biopharmas. Over the past year, the University of Pennsylvania opened the office-lab-production space Pennovation Center, whose tenants include tissue engineering and disease modeling startup BioBots; while in suburban Buckingham Township, the Pennsylvania Biotechnology Center of Bucks County broke ground in April on a $13 million expansion expected to create 100 jobs. The University City Science Center, the nation’s oldest research campus, welcomed Chondrial Therapeutics to its Port incubator. University City is part of an “innovation district” that could attract more jobs in part by focusing on precision medicine, a Brookings Institution initiative concluded in May.
Yet during this year’s Philly Tech Week, according to Technically Philly, Barbara Schilberg, CEO of VC firm Bioadvance, said investors remain concerned about getting startups past their seed stage: “The thing to watch is if they can get to a Series A.” VC funding is among challenges for the region, which ranked eighth both last year (11 deals totaling $125 million) and in Q1 (two deals totaling $29 million). The region also ranked eighth in patents (1,365), but fared better in lab space (seventh with nearly 6.4 million square feet), employment (sixth with 53,614 jobs, according to JLL) and notably NIH funding (fifth with 671 awards totaling $389 million).
#5. Maryland / Virginia / DC Metro
Area biopharma leaders have committed to growing their “BioHealth Capital Region” cluster into one of the nation’s top three by 2023, building on anchors ranging from the NIH and FDA, to the nation’s top academic recipient of research grant funding, the Johns Hopkins University. Hopkins accounts for 64.5% of the region’s NIH funding (556 awards totaling $271.4 million), placing fourth with 880 awards totaling nearly $420.7 million. The region is close to meeting its goal in patents (fourth with 4,108), but further back in employment (eighth with 39,145 jobs, according to JLL) and lab space (sixth with 9.5 million square feet).
Vaccine developers continue to grow: In May, Gaithersburg-based Emergent BioSciences opened an $80 million expanded medical countermeasures plant in East Baltimore, while GlaxoSmithKline announced a $139 million capacity expansion at its API plant in Rockville, MD, due to growing demand for its lupus erythematosus treatment Benlysta® (belimumab). The region finished sixth in VC funding last year ($146 million), but climbed to fourth during Q1 (seven awards totaling $71 million). Courting the industry eagerly are both Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma survivor who calls the cluster-building effort a personal mission.
#4. San Diego
“America’s Finest City” will be the center of the biopharma industry in June, when the Biotechnology Innovation Organization holds its annual BIO International Convention at the San Diego Convention Center, expected to draw 16,000 attendees. The “Plymouth of the West” and vicinity remain third in VC funding with 28 deals totaling $650 million last year. Nearly one-third of that total came from a single deal, the “in excess of” $220 million Series B financing of Human Longevity Inc. HLI and its executive chairman J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., who stepped down as CEO earlier this year, are among anchors of the region’s cluster-within-a-cluster focused on genomics, which according to the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation encompasses some 100 of the 1,200-plus companies and institutions. Another anchor, Illumina, in January opened the $40 million, 293,000-square-foot “Building 6” manufacturing facility, built for the sequencing giant by Alexandria Real Estate Equities.
Illumina’s roughly 3,000 employees help made the region fifth in jobs (63,730 according to JLL, compared with 49,763 counted by Biocom). The region ranks fourth in lab space (11.9 million square feet plus 1.1 million square feet under construction) and third in patents (4,383), but seventh in NIH funding (741 awards totaling $352.9 million).
#3. New York-New Jersey
The region’s biopharma industry may emerge as winners in the ongoing political rivalry between New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), who is seeking re-election this year. Both have advanced big-money cluster-building efforts: In April, Cuomo and legislative leaders agreed to include $620 million for life sciences programs in the state’s $153.1 billion budget for 2017–18, while de Blasio used a meeting with Seattle Mayor Ed Murray to restate the city’s commitment to the industry. Back in December, de Blasio announced $500 million in incentives designed to help create 16,000 life sciences jobs. Across the Hudson River, New Jersey in April launched a smaller incentive, the NJ CoVest Fund, designed to provide seed funding to Garden State-based early-stage life sciences and other technology companies.
New Jersey accounts for nearly 61% of the region’s jobs, helping catapult the Empire State–Garden State tandem to number-one in jobs (127,308, according to JLL). Among growing companies is Tarrytown, NY-based Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which in January said it will purchase its headquarters site for $720 million—a month after shelling out $50 million for an office property in nearby Sleepy Hollow, NY. Despite being home to Wall Street and the financial industry, the region ranks only seventh in VC funding (11 deals totaling $132 million in 2016; two deals totaling $29 million in Q1). NY–NJ fares better in patents (fifth with 3,208), and especially in lab space (12.7 million square feet) and NIH funding (third with 1,835 awards totaling about $787.3 million).
#2. San Francisco Bay Area
The Bay Area leads the nation in patents (10,312), and is close behind Boston/Cambridge in lab space with 19.3 million square feet. The lab market may be peaking; developer Oyster Point Development in January halved the lab R&D space it proposes to build at The Landing at Oyster Point in South San Francisco, from the 2.25 million square feet submitted to City officials last year, to 1 million square feet, replacing the lab space with 1,191 residential units. However, on May 4, the “Birthplace of Biotechnology” saw another developer, BioMed Realty, break ground on the first phase of Gateway of Pacific, a 1.3 million square foot lab-office campus.
In VC funding, the Bay Area finished 2016 second with $2.2 billion in 80 deals, and narrowly edged Boston/Cambridge in Q1 2017 with $1.435 billion in 20 deals. The region finished third in NIH funding (1,283 awards totaling about $520.6 million), and fourth in jobs with 67,738 according to JLL, though the California Life Sciences Association offers a slightly higher count of 68,313 as of 2015. That number can be expected to grow in coming months, with Juno Therapeutics in April confirming plans for a Bay Area office, saying it “puts us in the best position to continue to hire world-class talent.” Not all the region’s job news has been good; OncoMed halved its workforce in April.
#1. Boston / Cambridge, MA
A decade after then-Gov. Deval Patrick (D) enacted the Massachusetts Life Sciences Initiative, his successor has yet to announce what support the state will offer the industry when the $1 billion, ten-year measure expires next year. However, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) has committed the state to growing life sciences companies through workforce development programs and funding for drug R&D. Supporting biopharma is also the goal of the region’s incubators and accelerators—including the first Chinese-owned bioincubator, the Qilu Boston Innovation Center (QBIC), which opened May 19. QBIC was founded by Qilu Pharmaceuticals, a $2 billion-a-year Chinese drug developer that opened within the incubator its first branch company, cancer immunotherapy developer QLB Biotherapeutics.
Not surprisingly, the region leads the nation in NIH funding (2,169 awards totaling nearly $1.055 billion), lab space (19.9 million square feet), and 2016 VC funding (78 deals totaling $3.06 billion), though Boston/Cambridge finished second to the San Francisco Bay Area in Q1 with 19 deals totaling $534 million. Biopharma growth is fueling a wave of speculative lab space development in and around Boston and Cambridge; King Street Properties, for example, is building the $200 million, 145,000-square-foot 828 Winter Street adjacent to an existing lab building owned by the developer, and slated for completion in 2018. The region is also second in patents (6,496), but third in jobs with 86,235 according to JLL, though industry group Massachusetts Biotechnology Council (MassBio) reported 63,026 last year.
Merck has four major lead offices in New Jersey – – I think it’s a very good way to keep a close I on logistics for collaborations and or ownership with Merck.
What our new CEO is upto, submitted content Dec 19, 2017:
"Task Force established to foster biotechnology in the state"
NORTH BRUNSWICK – The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA) hosted the inaugural meeting of the New Jersey Biotechnology Task Force in recognition of the vital role the biotechnology industry serves in support of the state’s economy.
The Task Force is comprised of six legislative members, including Senator Linda Greenstein (Legislative District 14), Senator Robert Gordon (Legislative District 38), Senator Robert Singer (Legislative District 30), Assemblyman Andrew Zwicker (Legislative District 16), Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli (Legislative District 16), and Assemblyman Gary Schaer (Legislative District 36); two public members appointed by the governor, including Debbie Hart, president and CEO of BioNJ, and Daniel O’Connor, CEO of OncoSec Medical Incorporated; and Timothy Lizura, president and CEO of the EDA, serving in an ex-officio capacity.
At the meeting, held at the Commercialization Center for Innovative Technologies (CCIT) on the Technology Centre of New Jersey campus in North Brunswick, the Task Force voted to elect Hart as chair and Zwicker as vice chair. The EDA will serve as staff to the Task Force.
“I can think of no greater place to host the first meeting of this Task Force than CCIT, a hub of collaboration and innovation that perfectly illustrates the opportunity the biotechnology industry presents as we seek to grow New Jersey’s economy and create 21st century jobs,” Lizura said in a statement prepared by the EDA. “With the expertise of Debbie Hart and BioNJ, the industry and entrepreneurial insight of Daniel O’Connor, and the committed members of the Legislature who are focused on keeping New Jersey at the forefront of this evolving industry, we look forward to lively discussions and testimony, and ultimately, a plan of action to spur continued growth.”
The meeting included a presentation from Dr. James W. Hughes of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy focused on the state’s economy; remarks from BioNJ Vice President of Government Affairs Rebecca Perkins on challenges and opportunities related to New Jersey’s biotechnology industry; and a presentation from EDA Vice President of Technology and Life Science Investment Kathleen Coviello on the EDA’s current portfolio of initiatives designed to grow the innovation economy.
At the meeting, Hart noted that the genesis of the Biotechnology Task Force stems from the successful role that the Joint Legislative Task Force on Biotechnology and the Biotechnology Development Task Force played in the early 1990s, fostering increased communication between state government and industry, and recommending initiatives that served to greatly bolster the biotechnology sector, according to the statement.
“Our intent is that the new Task Force will capitalize and build on New Jersey’s strengths and result in more startups, increased venture capital investment and New Jersey’s bolstered leadership as an innovative biotechnology hub,” Hart said.
The Task Force expects to hold additional meetings at CCIT to hear testimony from academic and industry representatives, with the goal of submitting a report of recommendations to the governor and Legislature by the first quarter of 2018.
January is usually slow over the last couple of years with Noble investment conference, CEO conference, and Biotech Show case (which is a regular, annual outing. I don't see any imminent important scientific conferences where OncoSec would release any kind of important data (Punits past protocol, but new CEO may direct differently).
February was a good one last year and was active with:
February 27, 2017 | OncoSec Granted FDA Fast Track Designation for ImmunoPulse® IL-12 for the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma Following Progression on Pembrolizumab or Nivolumab
February 24, 2017 | OncoSec to Host KOL Event Focused on New ASCO-SITC Melanoma Data and Clinical Strategy on Tuesday, February 28 in New York City
February 23, 2017 | OncoSec Announces Positive Phase II Data Demonstrating Company’s ImmunoPulse® IL-12 in Combination with Pembrolizumab Increased Response Rates in Anti-PD-1 Non-Responder Melanoma Patients
February 8, 2017 | OncoSec to Present New Clinical Data from Phase 2 Combination Study at ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium and Corporate Updates at Two Investment Conferences in February
But provides a better runway where we can better expect New data
March 2, 2017 | OncoSec to Host Second Quarter Financial Conference Call on March 16, 2017
March 7, 2017 | OncoSec to Present at Scientific and Investment Conferences in MarchMarch 28, 2017 | OncoSec to Present Preclinical Data at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2017
March 14, 2017 | OncoSec Announces First Technology Access Program Agreement with Inhibrx
March 16, 2017 | OncoSec Announces Second Quarter and YTD Results for Fiscal Year 2017
March 21, 2017 | OncoSec Medical’s Intratumoral Plasmid IL-12 Demonstrates Effectiveness at Enhancing Tumor Immunogenicity in Preclinical Tumor Models
With this quick review, it's looking like from Feb through June hold a lot of potential opportunities for data like at the American Assoc. Cancer Research (AACR) on April 14-18, 2018, for which abstracts were to be submited by this Dec. 1, 2017., FDA rulings, collaborations and PISCES trial at ASCO, June 1-5, 2018. If OncoSec submits an abstract for that it must be submitted by February 13th, and late-breaking submitions by February 14th but before March 15.
Also there is A
Well sell, I guess it’s no different reaction when there’s no news and we watch the PPS rise and talk and the board is “Something good must be happening behind the scenes?”
Winded, I remember years ago when IL-2 was being looked at as a potential candidate with electroporation and the results were less than spectacular. I thought I would copy a blip resently published in the Oncology Nurse Advisor.
Also Pazzo, Those patients take doses as high as 100 mg twice daily which is the maximum dose. The cost of that one daily dose cost $31,000 – – I priced it at Molpool.com, And yes they do have bulk rate But it is extremely expensive stuff!
Pazzo, we were talking a couple weeks back about Epacadostat produced by Incyte (which is the company Adam Feurstein compared to OncoSec). You’ve mentioned a much larger trail so I can’t say there’s much comparison here. But, At the time, I found a poster on a phase 1 trial with 35 patients that produced 17% Level III & IV grade adverse experiences with the participants – – since it is administered systemically, It appeared to me that it’s toxicity is not well tolerated. Do you have any data regarding the SAE’s from interim data of that 700 patient trial?
What is this, an ad?
I like this Titan:
“Makers of cancer drugs are increasingly embracing such genetic therapies, compared to the traditional manner of identifying cancers by the affected body part, such as the lung, breast or kidney.”
WOW, 42,250,895 Shares of common stock outstanding after completion of this offering (assuming full exercise of the warrants that are exercisable for the shares offered)
First the reverse split diluted my shares, now these share raises cutting any profits in half.
http://archive.fastedgar.com//20171129/AJ2EAQ2CZC2R8ZS3222C2ZX2BJGKZZ22Z292/
Hey chick, I’m not sure there’s a whole lot of connection there – – maybe with employees but that’s as far as it goes.
Their treatment is administered systemically and therefore yields a high rate of adverse events. Their phase 1 trial yielded interim results where nearly a 3rd of the 34 participants experienced level III and IV adverse events – – I think that’s pretty high – – I’m also curious about the cost being prohibitive.
I am also very biased regarding the Merck/Keytruda Connection. It’s hard to see Merck, after millions of dollars of drug investment, should the multigene cocktail prove as well as we hope, to then just hand over billions in potential profit derived from Oncosec to the highest bidder. Also, I don’t believe the FDA would allow the free interchange of PD – 1’s as though they are all created equal clinically speaking, and that concerns for safety would mean more safety trials, which is not at all expedient of a process for OncoSec. So I think both companies are stuck with each other and so far I don’t think it’s a bad relationship I’m just waiting for them to get married and live happily ever after…OncoSec just has to beef up their dowry of data!?!
Here's the PR on Plexxikon--then never heard of it again that I can remember.
OncoSec to Test a Plexxikon CSF-1R Inhibitor in Combination with Intratumoral Electroporation of IL-12
SAN DIEGO-- OncoSec Medical Inc. (OTCQB: ONCS), a company developing DNA-based intratumoral cancer immunotherapies, today announced a preclinical collaboration with Plexxikon Inc., a member of the Daiichi Sankyo Group and leader in the discovery and development of novel small molecule pharmaceuticals, to test the combination of Plexxikon’s selective CSF-1R inhibitor with OncoSec’s Immunopulse pIL-12.
OncoSec’s Chief Scientific Officer, Robert H. Pierce, M.D., said: “Plexxikon is on the cutting edge of developing potent, highly-selective small molecule inhibitors of CSF-1R, a key cell surface receptor, which controls macrophage development and function. Intratumoral macrophages and other related cell types, like myeloid-derived suppressor cells, can be strongly immunosuppressive and block anti-tumor immunity. Given our understanding of IL-12 as a potent driver of immunogenicity and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and the potential role of tumor-resident myeloid cells in suppressing the anti-tumor effects of TILs, we hypothesize that blocking CSF-1R with Plexxikon’s selective CSF-1R inhibitor will lead to synergistic effects in the syngeneic B16.F10 melanoma mouse model.”
Mai H. Le, M.D., OncoSec’s Chief Medical Officer, commented: “Combination immune therapies, whether small molecules or biologics, will be the norm in the future. There is already considerable discussion in the oncology community regarding the need to find a rational approach to guide immune-focused combinations in the clinic. These initial studies are designed to test the rationale of our combination approach.”
Interleukin-12 (IL-12) is an inflammatory cytokine that is believed to be a master regulator of the immune system, and is important in the up-regulation of both the innate and adaptive immune responses. IL-12 is a key driver of the cascade of biological events which ultimately lead to T-cell-specific killing of cancer cells. Moreover, cytokines and chemokines induced by this pathway also increase the recruitment of inflammatory T-cells into tumors.
ImmunoPulse is a proprietary investigational electroporation device that delivers plasmid IL-12 DNA directly into tumors. By locally delivering and expressing IL-12, ImmunoPulse drives a strong anti-tumor immune response, which can lead not only to local tumor regression, but also systemic anti-tumor responses, while avoiding toxicities caused by systemic administration of IL-12. Recent interim data from OncoSec’s ongoing Phase II clinical study in melanoma have demonstrated that local delivery of IL-12 by electroporation increases the production of cytokines like IFN-?, resulting in increased expression of genes related to the processes required for cytotoxic CD8+ T cells to recognize and kill cancer cells.
About PLX’s highly-specific small molecule inhibitors of CSF-1R
Plexxikon is currently exploring the role of CSF-1R-targeted immune therapy as a sensitizer to chemo- and radiation-therapy, in addition to its potential to augment response to complementary immunotherapies.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING to all here, I think next year at this time we are going to have a lot more to be thankful for as $ONCS will be strutting her stuff with Big Pharma, who will be drinking down the success from OncoSec's Multi-gene coctail, with a side of ImmunoPulse licensing deal. We are going to have to let out our emotional belts from the increased success and get larger bank accounts, while we offer toasts to the increased hope and heath Cancer Patients everywhare.
Sorry kid, I spaced on that one!
I don’t think so kid, have nothing going in breast cancer.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017: 2:15 pm - 3:15 pm MINI-SYMPOSIUM 1 - Hall 3
Molecular Subtypes and Clinical Ramifications of TNBC
Moderator: Tiffany A. Traina, MD
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
New York, NY
Targeting DNA repair deficiency in triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) with G-quadruplex stabilisers
Samuel Aparicio, PhD
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, CANADA
New clinical approaches for TNBC
Melinda Telli, MD
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, CA