Replies to post #307709 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[biopharm]

Dana Farber is where Troy Luster went (also had collaborations with Evotec)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129100057

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102461358

Of note, immediately following the anti-PS presentation, the discussion of the three preceding presentations, (abstracts 3003-3005), is led by none other than Dr. Glenn Dranoff himself, well-known and well-published Harvard immunologist, who recently has been studying the therapeutic anti-tumor effects achieved by blocking PS-mediated signaling.

Dranoff's 2008 paper published in the journal Clinical Cancer Research, titled ”Capitalizing on the Immunogenicity of Dying Tumor Cells”, should be "required reading" for anyone interested in how exposed PS is exploited by tumors to elude the cells of the immune system. In the paper, he speaks very broadly about the role of exposed PS in the apoptotic process common to all multicellular organisms, and he outlines experiments in which autologous tumor cells combined with PS-blocking yielded some very impressive experimental anti-tumor results.
3-15-08 CCR: http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/14/6/1603


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37679693

New recruit has big dreams for cancer immunotherapy
Glenn Dranoff and his team at the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research are focusing on using the immune system to fight tumors.

New recruit has big dreams for cancer immunotherapy - hero image
STORIES/DISCOVERY
New recruit has big dreams for cancer immunotherapy
Glenn Dranoff and his team at the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research are focusing on using the immune system to fight tumors.

By
Alyssa Kneller
Mar 30, 2015

An oncologist by training, Glenn Dranoff fell into the field of immunology in the mid-1990s after his residency and clinical fellowship. He was working as a postdoc at the Whitehead Institute, where he was using new cloning technologies to study how blood forms, when a surprising observation changed the course of his career. The research team accidentally triggered an immune attack on tumor cells, killing the miscreants.


New recruit has big dreams for cancer immunotherapy - hero image
STORIES/DISCOVERY
New recruit has big dreams for cancer immunotherapy
Glenn Dranoff and his team at the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research are focusing on using the immune system to fight tumors.
By
Alyssa Kneller
Mar 30, 2015

An oncologist by training, Glenn Dranoff fell into the field of immunology in the mid-1990s after his residency and clinical fellowship. He was working as a postdoc at the Whitehead Institute, where he was using new cloning technologies to study how blood forms, when a surprising observation changed the course of his career. The research team accidentally triggered an immune attack on tumor cells, killing the miscreants.


Glenn Dranoff, Global Head of Immuno-Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research
“We ended up stumbling across a strategy of cancer vaccination that seemed to work in mice,” Dranoff explains. “I thought that we might be able to apply this approach to cancer patients, and that’s what I set out to do as a faculty member after finishing my postdoc.”

Fast forward 20 years. Dranoff is still obsessed with using the immune system to fight cancer, but now he’s in good company. With clinical successes mounting, immunotherapy is poised to become a cornerstone of cancer treatment. To capitalize on this opportunity and bring new medicines to the clinic, the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research recently launched a research group focused on Immuno-oncology, recruiting Dranoff from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School to lead it. The group will build on recent acquisitions and collaborations—including a new deal with the biotech company Aduro—to transform promising research into treatments.

Dranoff and his partners will explore therapeutic approaches that fall into three main categories. First, they’ll search for ways to “prime” or “educate” the immune system, so that it can recognize a threat. Second, they’ll attempt to unleash immune cells that have already been primed. This is called immunomodulation. And finally, they’ll find ways to make the tumor microenvironment more hospitable to immune cells, which must infiltrate the diseased tissue to be effective.

“These categories cover the major mechanisms that tumors use to thwart an immune attack, and we plan to address all of them,” says Dranoff.

The team is off to a running start. Dranoff brings with him cancer vaccine research, which falls into the first category. And—spurred by the 2014 acquisition of a startup called CoStim—Novartis is already investigating “checkpoint inhibitors,” which fall into the second category. The new collaboration with Aduro focuses on the tumor microenvironment.

Novartis is also pursuing treatments that bypass conventional immune activation through a collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania. Investigators extract T cells from patients and reengineer them to recognize and destroy cancer.

The new Immuno-oncology group will continue and expand on these existing efforts. Dranoff is particularly excited about combining more than one approach in the same patient, a strategy that stems from his work at Dana-Farber. In early clinical trials, cancer vaccines generated only modest clinical benefit, disappointing many researchers. But Dranoff and others now believe that vaccines could be paired with immunomodulators to produce a significant, durable response in certain types of cancer.

“The field has matured to a point that we can come up with reasonable hypotheses about how to apply and combine immunotherapies, based on clinical data,” says Dranoff. “It’s a remarkable privilege to be working at this time, when the expectations are quite high for making significant advances across a large array of dreadful diseases.”

It seems that immunotherapy’s time has arrived. It has been a long road to today, however, and up until recently, scientists were skeptical of the field’s clinical relevance. Following is an excerpt from a conversation with Dranoff about his professional journey and vision for Immuno-oncology research at Novartis.

When did most researchers working in oncology realize that immunotherapy was going to be big?

When they saw the striking clinical activity of the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor in 2010. Many different types of tumors responded to immune modulation with a single molecule, which was a big surprise, even to me. Based on all the information that was available prior to the studies of PD-1 blockade, you could not have predicted that result. And it was the first clinical evidence that strong endogenous immune responses really do occur, just as the scientific legend Paul Ehrlich (link is external) hypothesized in the early 1900s. He suggested that if you didn’t have an intact immune system, then cancer would develop more frequently and be more aggressive. This is the concept of immunosurveillance.

Why did the immunosurveillance hypothesis fall out of favor?

A number of reasons. One was the discovery of the nude mouse, which lacks a fully-functioning immune system. People said, “If Paul Ehrlich’s hypothesis is correct, then surely this immunodeficient mouse should develop a higher incidence of cancer.” But lots and lots of nude mice were tested in every way for tumor susceptibility and it wasn’t increased. We’ve recently learned that these animals retain key elements of the immune system that are involved in tumor protection, which explains the earlier results.

As groups studying the nude mice raised questions about cancer immunology, genetics was marching ahead. Oncogenes were discovered, and everyone became convinced that cancer would be solved by putting tumor tissue in a dish and figuring out the cell biology. Even when investigators confirmed in the early 1990s that our T cells can recognize cancer cells, the feeling was, “So what.” It didn’t prove that the immune system impacts the disease as a whole.

Why didn’t you follow the herd and focus on the cell biology movement in oncology?

I stumbled into cancer immunology by accident, but there was enough there to keep me interested. I have a strong sense of optimism, fostered by Trudy Elion, my mentor in medical school. She was a chemist who, together with George Hitchings, made a series of advances that were later recognized with a Nobel Prize. Over the course of 40 or 50 years, their ideas were transformed into new medicines for organ transplantation, autoimmune disease, cancer and more. And each drug to emerge from their work was a 10-year story. So I learned to be patient and optimistic that my research might eventually lead to a very beneficial outcome for patients.

You were trained as an oncologist. Were you hesitant to shift toward immunology?

I’m most interested in areas where disciplines overlap. That’s what appeals to me about medicine in general. Medicine ultimately impacts a human being with feelings, needs and desires. To be a healer, you need to understand each patient’s story and how a treatment will affect his or her life. Then you need to integrate all of that knowledge with more objective ways of looking at medical issues, bringing rigorous scientific analysis into play. In my own research, I enjoy building connections between areas that don’t immediately appear to overlap. And initially it was helpful that I was immunologically naïve because I didn’t have as many biases.

Scientifically, what is your proudest accomplishment?

I’m proud to have been part of the work that led to the demonstration that immunity really matters in cancer. Many researchers have contributed, showing that careful, mechanistic-based studies of novel immunotherapies in humans can be done. And now the early-stage clinical trials are proving relevant at a larger scale. The fact that pharmaceutical companies are now interested in what I’ve spent all of my time doing is exciting.

Why are you moving from academia to industry and why Novartis?

At a certain point, after a principle is established in an academic setting, that principle needs to be applied in an industry setting, where real drugs are made. The cancer immunology field has matured to that point. And I think that the opportunities are great at Novartis because of its impressive portfolio of targeted cancer drugs. The cell biology movement was very productive, yielding many drugs that target the alterations in tumor cells. But drug resistance has emerged as a problem. We might be able to couple targeted therapies with immunotherapies to convert dramatic regressions into long-lasting responses.

And it turns out that some of the existing targeted therapies hit molecular pathways that are relevant to immune function. In other words, we didn’t fully understand how they work from the outset. We might be able to repurpose some of these compounds to overcome immune suppression by tumors. This will require a lot of collaboration, and we’ll need to leverage expertise from across the company and beyond to be successful.

https://www.nibr.com/stories/discovery/new-recruit-has-big-dreams-cancer-immunotherapy

__________________________________________________


Karin Briner.... Let the bidding begin for PS Targeting or maybe Novartis has secured first right of refusal??

[asmarterwookie]

Thanks HUT! So another patent citing Bavituximab. At least there is SOME worth it seems.

What's next?


wook

[patientlywaiting]

They may be citing Bavi but are they doing an end run around PPHM PS patents like Bayer?

[cjgaddy]

Hutschi, that Dana-Farber patent App is a continuation of previously granted patent #9,492,518 that was originally filed 10-4-2007 and, from what I can tell, most recently approved (probably thru 1 or more subsequent iterations) on 11-15-2016...

U.S. Patent #9,492,518
”Tumor Immunity - Disclosed herein are materials and methods for treating cancer. In particular, compositions for stimulating tumor immunity through modulation of MFG-E8 are provided.”
Inventors: Dranoff, Glenn (Lexington, MA), Jinushi, Masahisa (Tokyo)
Assignee: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston)
Filed: 10-4-2007, PCT Pub. Date: 4-10-2008, Approved: 11-15-2016
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9,492,518.PN.&OS=PN/9,492,518&RS=PN/9,492,518

= = = = =CONTINUATION:
U.S. Patent Appl. #20170224793: Filed: 9/26/2016, Pub: 8/10/2017
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0224793.html
“This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application #12/444,047, filed Mar. 4, 2010 and issued as U.S. Pat. #9,492,518 on Nov. 15, 2016, which is the U.S. National Phase of Intl. Patent Appl. #PCT/US07/80446, filed Oct. 4, 2007, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Appl.# 60/828,177, filed Oct. 4, 2006. The contents of each application listed above are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.”

SUMMARY:
Methods and compositions for cancer therapy are provided. In particular, the methods and compositions described herein stimulate immune-mediated tumor destruction. The present invention is based, in part, on the discovery that conditions that result in the downregulation of MFG-E8 can potentiate GM-CSF stimulated tumor destruction to provoke a clinical anti-tumor response.
. . .
In another embodiment, the MFG-E8 inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of an anti-MFG-E8 antibody, an anti-phosphatidylserine antibody, an MFG-E8 polypeptide that lacks the ability to bind integrins; and an MFG-E8 polypeptide that lacks the ability to bind phosphatidylserine. The antibody can be a monoclonal antibody, a polyclonal antibody, an Fab fragment, a chimeric antibody, a humanized antibody or a single chain antibody. Regardless of the precise molecular form of the antibody, the antibody is a pharmaceutically pure antibody.

ANTIBODIES:
An MFG-E8 inhibitor can be an antibody. In one embodiment, the antibody can be an anti-MFG-E8 antibody. In another embodiment, the antibody can be an anti-PS antibody. Anti-PS antibodies and ligands for binding PS are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,406,693, 6,818,213, 6,312,694, and 6,783,760 and in Beck et al. 2006 Int J Cancer 118:2639-43. Anti-PS antibodies e.g., Bavituximab (Peregrine Pharmaceuticals), are also described on the NCI trials database at http//canger.gov/clinical trials. In another embodiment, the antibody can be an antibody that specifically recognizes and blocks the activity of a molecule that functions in the uptake of PS. Examples of PS-uptake targets include Del-1 (see for example, without limitation, NP_005702, GI:31317224), Gas6 (see for example, without limitation, NP_000811, GI:4557617), Mer (see for example, without limitation, NP_006334, GI:66932918) and members of the Tyro family (see for example, without limitation, NP_006284, GI:27597078.) As used herein, useful antibodies can include: monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies, single chain antibodies, chimeric antibodies, bifunctional/bispecific antibodies, humanized antibodies, human antibodies, and complementary determining region (CDR)-grafted antibodies, that are specific for the target protein or fragments thereof, and also include antibody fragments, including Fab, Fab', F(ab')2, scFv, Fv, camelbodies, or microantibodies.

MFG-E8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MFGE8

[biopharm]

TUMOR IMMUNITY United States Patent Application 20170224793

Inventors:

Dranoff, Glenn (Lexington, MA, US)
Jinushi, Masahisa (Tokyo, JP)

Assignee:

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. (Boston, MA, US)


Publication Date:

08/10/2017


Filing Date:

09/26/2016


Quote:
A method of treating a cancer or cancer symptom in a subject, the method comprising administering to the subject an effective amount of one or more tumor cell antigens that elicit an immune response against a tumor and an MFG-E8, wherein the MFG-E8 inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of an anti-MFG-E8 antibody, an anti-phosphatidyl serine antibody, an MFG-E8 polypeptide that lacks the ability to bind integrins; and an MFG-E8 polypeptide that lacks the ability to bind phosphatidyl serine.


Quote:
Antibodies

An MFG-E8 inhibitor can be an antibody. In one embodiment, the antibody can be an anti-MFG-E8 antibody. In another embodiment, the antibody can be an anti-PS antibody. Anti-PS antibodies and ligands for binding PS are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,406,693, 6,818,213, 6,312,694, and 6,783,760 and in Beck et al. 2006 Int J Cancer 118:2639-43. Anti-PS antibodies e.g., Bavituximab (Peregrine Pharmaceuticals)....
...
....

After some time thinking during landscaping today....

If this Laura E. Benjamin from Dana Farber is the one....then I would think that it may be Novartis because they have Glenn Dranoff that they picked up from Dana Farber which also happens to have PS Targeting patent in his name, though assigned to Dana Farber and that is where Laura E. Benjamin newly formed Oncologie comes into play

Now wall street plays zig zag and pushes retail around as hedges pile up a big chunk of CDMO and this is ALL about building stakes, building stakes in CDMO....and trying to limit or silence those that would instantly validate PS Targeting, such as Dr Jedd Wolchok

Drug: MBG453
MBG453 is a high-affinity, humanized anti-TIM-3 IgG4 monoclonal antibody which blocks the binding of TIM-3 to phosphatidylserine (PtdSer).



David Epstein
–
Division Head,
Pharmaceuticals
Meet Novartis Management
June 17
-
18, 2015

GITR

anti-CSF1
https://www.novartis.com/sites/www.novartis.com/files/2015-06-meet-the-management-2-pharma.pdf

Jay Bradner - Glenn Dranoff
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133728189

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=136242972

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=37679693

......would some Big Pharma be so upset that they try to toss out a little anti-Novartis campaign ? Possibly

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/12/greek-pm-calls-for-inquiry-into-bribery-claims-against-two-predecessors

Greece rocked by claims drug giant bribed former leaders
Report alleges Swiss drugmaker Novartis bribed senior politicians and thousands of doctors

.....I would say this is like the Barry Bonds era on steroids, all the big guys played unfairly that wanted to be #1 and no difference in Big Pharma

Lots of money to toss around .....and select few small biotech with pipelines that are worth waiting for....

I will wait and hedge funds don't like patient investors