Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech for less than cash value -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (92)	7/11/2002 9:59:18 AM
From: Hank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 684

"Well, can you tell us why they plan to follow 50406 into the clinic with a second candidate later this year? Can you tell us if it has been tested in the Rice lab, or if validation of the target may have come from the Rice lab? Thanks!!" I'm afraid I don't know the answers to these questions. To be honest, I made the transition from virology to signal transduction/cancer biology about 4 years ago, so I'm not up to speed on the most recent developments in virology. Even if I were, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on information that isn't publicly available. My opinions on VPHM and pleconaril stem from what I know about their history and early stages of development. "Could you describe the cellular components that interact with NS5B in the membrane-ass'd replication complex?" Ah yes. Good old NS5B. I worked on that enzyme myself in the late 90's. Again, I can't shed any more light onto that subject than what is currently available in the literature. However, I can make a general statement about what is and is not likely to work as a drug target. With very few exceptions, targeting protein-protein interactions for drug discovery is not a good idea because it is almost impossible to find a small molecular inhibitor that is specific for one particular interaction, although there are a very few exceptions to this rule. From what I've seen of the current literature on NS5B, I don't get the impression that NS5B interactions with cellular components or other viral proteins are defined enough to be one of these exceptions. The best target is always a catalytic site when you're talking about an enzyme. With polymerases, this invariably leaves you to search through a relatively short list of nucleoside analogs. Nucleoside analogs are often cytotoxic and/or mutagenic. However, if you're lucky, you'll find one that works and is well tolerated, such as those that have been developed for HIV. Unfortunately, most viruses are able to get around these inhibitors eventually by mutation. "I (actually, "we".... a private portfolio company) may want to hire you as a consultant." Thanks for the offer but I have a feeling my current employer (a very large drug company) might view that as a conflict of interest. "If you could, please tell us why Wyeth will take a candidate into phase I trials when it's already known that the trial will fail. An addiction for liability lawsuits?" First of all, it wasn't already known that the trial would fail. My skepticism with regards to pleconaril is largely based on my opinion that it would have limited application medically. I doubt very many healthy adults would run to the Dr. for a picovir prescription just to shave one or two days off their cold. In fact, I would bet most HMO's would object to paying for it. You have to realize that little biotechs like VPHM can only survive if they get big pharma funding. Hence, no matter how good or bad the data is, it's always accompanied by the usual "hard sell". The decision to fund a small biotech isn't always based solely on data but the result of good salesmanship, as well. Just look at how badly BMS got burned on Erbitux. Those of us in the industry not connected to the deal new it was a stupid move right from the start. Most other companies would have laughed at the suggestion they should fork over 2 billion for the rights to Erbitux. "Cacaito has done a decent job of outlining conceptual problems with the RSV program. Do you have anything to add? No sense in going to phase II if it's already known that the target stinks. Not even a chance that it might save a few infants? The 14637 backup? Completely worthless? I hate it when babies die." Again, I don't think it's known that the trial will fail. RSV is a good target but it only became the focus of drug discovery recently as new viral targets became more scarce. It's the one virus I don't know much about. I was working for a different drug company just before I switched research fields and they had only just begun to work on RSV about the time I left their employment to pursue a sabbatical in signal transduction. When I worked in virology, I worked on HIV, HCV, influenza, and HPV. Does VPHM have a good RSV drug? Who knows. With VPHM you basically have the longest shot possible in biotech IMHO. About 30%-50% of drugs die in clinical trials and with VPHM's limited pipeline they'll have to get damn lucky to wind up with a drug on the market. Plus, the FDA is becoming more stringent in their drug approval process, as you've already found out with pleconaril. I just don't see the point of wasting money on a company like VPHM when there are other biotechs out there with better prospects.