VDP-120 [Assessment]: Oisín Biotechnologies - Genetic Medicines for Health and Longevity

One-liner: Oisín Biotechnologies is a multi-asset longevity biotech company pioneering genetic medicines to combat sarcopenia and other age-related diseases to promote healthier, longer lives.

Longevity Dealflow WG team

  • Senior Reviewers: 2 scientists, 1 pharma professional, 1 VC, 1 biotech entrepreneur
  • Shepherd: Eleanor Davies
  • Other squad members: Paolo Binetti, Ryan Spangler, Tuan Dinh

Project PI:

  • Matthew Scholz, CEO & Co-founder

Simple Summary

Oisin Biotechnologies is a company dedicated to developing genetic medicines that address a range of age-related diseases. Their lead candidate aims to build muscle without exercise, which could be used as a therapy to make older people stronger. The company also has assets that selectively kill adipocytes and senescent cells, which are believed to play a significant role in the aging process and the onset of age-related diseases. Oisin has generated in-vivo data and has already licensed its technology to pharmaceutical companies.

By leveraging their royalty-free licence to Entos’ Fusogenix Proteo-Lipid Vehicle (PLV) platform, Oisín aims to deliver specific genes to alter cell behavior, or in the case of problematic cells, inducing apoptosis and thereby rejuvenating tissues or improving physical function.

This delivery system is not only safer and more cost-effective than other prevalent systems such as viral approaches, but also ensures consistent and reproducible outcomes. If successful in human trials and upon receiving regulatory approval, this therapy could be a game-changer in the longevity and age-related disease market, potentially becoming available within the next five years.

Problem

As the global population ages, the prevalence of age-related diseases, particularly those linked to physical frailty are on the rise. Physical strength is incredibly important. In the more extreme cases, a person in a wheelchair or bedridden is effectively living on borrowed time. If they do not get out soon, they may never get out at all. Conversely, robust physical strength allows for greater activity and exercise, improved mobility, enhanced social interactions, and higher quality of life. Increased muscle mass, improves metabolism, strengthens bone, and protects against injury. The challenge lies in maintaining muscle mass in aging populations, particularly following injury, sickness, or surgery. Current interventions are largely limited to diet and exercise.

Oisín Biotechnologies has identified physical frailty as a key target for therapeutic intervention. By directly increasing skeletal muscle mass and physical strength they aim to not only treat but potentially prevent a myriad of age-related conditions, improving healthspan and potentially even lifespan. Pharmaceutical companies have attempted to make therapeutics that target this pathway for years but have failed to solve the manufacturing challenges needed to produce them at scale. Oisín’s approach, rooted in advanced genetic medicine, offers a promising solution in a field that would be both scalable and cost effective.

Solution

Oisín’s cutting-edge technology is designed to deliver DNA and RNA with unparalleled distribution and safety at an unprecedented cost and scale. Using their Fusogenix Proteo-Lipid Vehicle (PLV) platform, they can deliver specific nucleic acid cargos to cells across the body that alter the cells behavior, such as making it produce a therapeutic protein, or in the case of unwanted cells causing them to die via apoptosis or other programmed cell death pathways.

Preliminary results from their research have been promising. For combatting frailty, they’ve observed marked increases in muscle size and physical strength from a single treatment. In the case of fat removal, they have shown selective reduction in adipocytes and with their senolytic they’ve observed a marked reduction in markers of senescence and a noticeable improvement in health parameters and lifespan of treated animals. This approach to genetic medicines enables entirely new therapies that hold immense promise for treating age-related diseases and potentially extending healthy lifespan.

Oisín has already demonstrated it can vastly improve physical strength in mice, selectively clear senescent cells in mice (resulting in improved lifespan and healthspan), and selectively ablate adipocytes in human tissue explants. They have performed tolerability studies in nonhuman primates at doses far higher than are expected to be used in humans. Importantly, their PLV platform has already made it through Phase II human trials in a COVID vaccine with no safety signals. To accomplish this, they had to demonstrate the ability to manufacture PLV-based therapies at human scale.

Opportunity

In 2020 there were ≈36M patients in the U.S. over the age of 60 with moderate to severe sarcopenia. In 2000, the estimated direct healthcare cost attributable to sarcopenia in the U.S. was $18.5B and this number is only expected to increase. Oisín’s follistatin-based therapy is uniquely positioned to address this market. Pharmaceutical companies have tried and failed to manufacture effective follistatin and myostatin targeted therapies in the past, primarily due to manufacturing challenges. Achieving a high enough dose to be therapeutic has been a challenge for other delivery technologies due to toxicity of the vectors. Viral-based gene therapies are too costly to be broadly deployed and would likely encounter significant immunological challenges in a very large patient population.

Oisín plans to initially treat patients prior to surgeries such as ACL repair or hip transplant to protect against disuse atrophy. This allows for a more defined patient population with clear endpoints.

Oisín’s technical and intellectual property (IP) strengths position it well to aggressively pursue this growing market in particular. Given the vast potential market for effective anti-aging therapies and the increasing interest in longevity research, Oisín’s approach could capture a significant share of this market. Their therapies could become a cornerstone treatment for age-related diseases, offering both societal and commercial value.

In addition, Oisin has exclusive rights to use the Entos’ Fusogenix technology in the field of longevity, giving them an edge in drug delivery.

Relevance to longevity

Sarcopenia and dynapenia are significant drivers of physical frailty and morbidity. Follistatin directly counteracts this as a direct driver of skeletal muscle hypertrophy. They have shown that increasing muscle mass with our follistatin therapy increases physical strength. Increasing physical strength improves healthspan by facilitating greater activity levels, improved metabolic function, and higher quality of life. Increased muscle mass leads to increased bone density and protects against injury. Others have even recently published that follistatin gene therapies can even extend lifespan in animals.

Beyond follistatin, Oisín has a robust pipeline and is positioning itself to become a large pharmaceutical company focused on healthspan and longevity. Their initial focus on validated targets and FDA-centric endpoints is designed to allow for early licensing deals with large pharmaceutical companies. The objective is to bring in enough revenue with these deals to take their own therapies to approval and eventually even commercialization. Their IP position is broad enough to facilitate product development far into the future and capitalize on new science as it emerges.

IP Roadmap

Oisín Biotechnologies has been proactive in protecting its IP pipeline. They have broad exclusive rights to the Fusogenix PLV patent portfolio and hold several patents related to their specific cargos and therapeutic applications. They continue to file new applications as they develop them and have rights to improvements of the PLV delivery technology. This robust IP portfolio positions them well against competitors and ensures they can capitalize on their innovations.

As they continue their research and development, it is expected that Oisín will further expand its IP holdings, ensuring a dominant position in the longevity biotech sector.

Budget

12 Month Budget

  • Research and Development: $1,666,229

  • Payroll and Related Expense: $1,715,063

  • Consulting: $349,013

  • Lab Rent & Insurance: $166,713

  • Legal: $106,015

  • Intellectual Property: $383,045

  • General and Administrative: $232,624

Total: $4,618,702

Financing and VitaDAO Funding Terms

Oisín Biotechnologies is actively seeking funding to propel their research forward. They recognize the value that VitaDAO members bring, both in terms of financial support and expertise. They’re offering an opportunity for VitaDAO members to provide funding under their current SAFE (standard SAFE document, raising up to $5M with a $100M cap, and 15% discount to the next round), ensuring a mutually beneficial partnership. The previous round was in 2021 and also a SAFE. It had a $70M cap and 15% discount. They have verbal commitments for a significant portion of this SAFE and anticipate closing it soon. This closure will also be based on the outcome/time frame resulting from current discussions with pharmaceutical partners.

Oisín was incorporated in February 2014 as a Delaware C corporation and has raised $11.2M. Notable investors include SENS Foundation, M Fund, Althea, Kizoo, Healthspan Ventures, and several prominent angel investors in the longevity community. They have already identified a putative lead investor for their subsequent Series A.

Team

Leadership

Matthew Scholz - CEO & Co-founder
20+ years experience starting and running biotech companies. Founder of Immusoft, creator of the first engineered B cell therapy allowed to enter human trials and Sigma Genetics, a YC-backed company developing a novel nucleic acid delivery technology.

John D. Lewis, Ph.D. - CSO & Co-founder
Endowed Chair, Prostate Cancer, University of Alberta. Founder of Entos Pharmaceuticals, the owners of the PLV technology and Nanostics, a ML-based cancer diagnostics company.

Gary C. Hudson - Executive Chairman
50+ years experience biotech and aerospace.

Steve Hilbert - Chief Business Officer
19+ years experience finance and business JP Morgan/Charles Schwab.

Eric Garcia - Chief Operating Officer
15+ years experience, COO, CFO in biotech.

Hank Garcia, Ph.D. - Head of Aging R&D
10+ years experience in aging, oncology, and gene therapy.

Key Collaborators

Joseph Bonventre, M.D., Ph.D. - Advisor
Chief of the Renal Unit & Engineering in Medicine Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Marco Demaria, Ph.D. - Advisor
Faculty of Medical Sciences, Leader of the Laboratory of Cellular Senescence and Age-related Pathologies.

Peter Elias, Ph.D. - Advisor
Professor Emeritus, Department of Dermatology UCSF, Staff Physician at the VA San Francisco

Ed Simcox J.D. - Advisor
CSO, LifeOmic; Fmr. CTO, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Launched KidneyX

Slide deck

Slide Deck: link to deck

Highlights

Fusogenix Proteo-Lipid Vehicle (PLV) Platform: Oisín’s proprietary Fusogenix PLV platform allows for the delivery of specific nucleic acid cargos to cells, altering their behavior or inducing apoptosis in problematic cells. This allows for the targeted delivery of genetic material, ensuring precision in addressing problematic cells without affecting healthy ones.

Broad Therapeutic Pipeline: Beyond muscle growth, Oisín has shown the ability to selectively clear senescent cells in mice and ablate adipocytes in human tissue explants, positioning it as a comprehensive solution for age-related conditions.

Proven Preliminary Results: Early studies have shown significant results, such as mice treated with their follistatin therapy showing a 50% increase in size and a 100% increase in strength compared to controls.

Traction: Oisin has already sold a license option of its follistatin application to a large pharmaceutical company providing further validation of the approach and existing preclinical data. If successful in human trials and subsequent regulatory approval, this therapy could become available within the next five years.

Market Opportunity: With sarcopenia-related healthcare costs in the U.S. already at $18.5B in 2020 and rising, Oisín’s follistatin-based therapy, combined with exclusive rights to the Fusogenix technology, positions the company to capture a portion of this market. This may offer a revenue stream where previous pharmaceutical efforts have been unsuccessful.

Strong IP Position: With broad exclusive rights to the Fusogenix PLV patent portfolio and several patents related to specific cargos and therapeutic applications, Oisín stands protected against competition.

Risks

Manufacturing Challenges for Follistatin and Myostatin Therapies: Historically, the biotech industry has struggled with producing follistatin and myostatin-targeted therapies at scale. While Oisín’s Fusogenix PLV platform promises to overcome these challenges, the actual large-scale production may present unforeseen difficulties, potentially affecting the timeline for therapy availability and cost-effectiveness.

Regulatory Hurdles: Oisín’s Fusogenix PLV platform introduces a new paradigm in genetic material delivery. The safety of genetic therapies, not to mention Oisín’s novel delivery mechanism, may be subject to regulatory scrutiny and rigorous evaluation, especially in regions where genetic medicine policies are still being formulated or updated.

Competitive Landscape: As Oisín focuses on genetic medicines for sarcopenia and senescent cell clearance, they face competition from other biotechs targeting the same pathways or using alternative methods. The race to develop effective follistatin and myostatin-targeted therapies has seen multiple entrants, and Oisín’s Fusogenix PLV platform, while unique, will need to demonstrate superiority in efficacy, safety, and scalability to maintain a competitive edge.

Potential Side Effects: While showing promise in preliminary studies, Oisín’s technology is still in the investigational stage. As with all genetic therapies, there’s a possibility of unforeseen side effects emerging during later-stage clinical trials. These could arise from the targeted delivery of genetic material or the induced cellular responses, potentially impacting the therapy’s broader applicability and acceptance.

Bibliography

  1. Brown, D. W. et al. Safe and Effective Delivery of Nucleic Acids Using Proteolipid Vehicles Formulated with Fusion-Associated Small Transmembrane Proteins. SSRN Electron. J. (2022) doi:10.2139/ssrn.4241169.

  2. Top, D. et al. Liposome reconstitution of a minimal protein-mediated membrane fusion machine. EMBO J. 24, 2980–8 (2005).

  3. Ciechonska, M. & Duncan, R. Reovirus FAST proteins: virus-encoded cellular fusogens. Trends Microbiol. 22, 715–24 (2014).

  4. Top, D., Barry, C., Racine, T., Ellis, C. L. & Duncan, R. Enhanced fusion pore expansion mediated by the trans-acting Endodomain of the reovirus FAST proteins. PLoS Pathog. 5, e1000331 (2009).

  5. Mendell, J. R. et al. A Phase I/IIa Follistatin Gene Therapy Trial for Becker Muscular Dystrophy. Mol. Ther. (2014) doi:10.1038/mt.2014.200.

  6. Kota, J. et al. Follistatin gene delivery enhances muscle growth and strength in nonhuman primates. Sci. Transl. Med. 1, 6ra15 (2009).

  7. Tang, R. et al. Gene therapy for follistatin mitigates systemic metabolic inflammation and post-traumatic arthritis in high-fat diet-induced obesity. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz7492 (2020).

  8. Rodino-Klapac, L. R. et al. Inhibition of myostatin with emphasis on follistatin as a therapy for muscle disease. Muscle Nerve 39, 283–96 (2009).

  9. Lee, S. J. & McPherron, a C. Regulation of myostatin activity and muscle growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 9306–11 (2001).

  10. Jaijyan, D. K. et al. New intranasal and injectable gene therapy for healthy life extension. bioRxiv 2021.06.26.449305 (2021) doi:10.1101/2021.06.26.449305.

Senior Review Digest - Quantitative

Below is the average scores out of 5 per category from 5 reviewers, who all recommended that the project should be advanced for community feedback.

Average Scores

  • Novelty: 4.2
  • Feasibility: 3.6
  • Relevance: 4
  • Science Team: 4.2
  • Market Advantage: 3.6
  • IP Potential: 4.2
  • Conviction score: 3.8

Senior Review Digest - Qualitative

Reviewer 1

The answers provided by Oisin are very satisfactory to settle my main worries. I remain of the opinion that the platform is not tremendously differentiated and the dealterms are not in favor of vitaDAO, but the mission, status and potential upside of this approach outweigh my concerns.

Reviewer 2

Many of my notable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and it’s clear that the Oisin mission closely aligns with VitaDAO, particularly in the field of longevity research. The platform is also compelling. Nonetheless, there is still some uncertainty surrounding what VitaDAO can accomplish at this advanced stage in the company’s lifecycle (9 years). This is a matter that the community can collectively decide.

Reviewer 3

Company has answered the open questions satisfactorily and provided additonal information, which addresses most of my concerns. Although the previous progress was mainly in the pre-clinical data generation but its more likely that Oisin will move faster towards the clinical research in the coming months and years.

My outlook towards the company future is optimistic. Regarding the deal terms, it is a very high valuation of $100M at this stage of the company and I would recommend if VitaDAO can negotiate for a better valuation or additional discount with the deal terms. Nevertheless, given the high upside of the PLV technology, potential pharma deals and applications in the longevity interventions, I would favor the investment into the company Oisin Biotechnology.

Reviewer 4

Oisín has an innovative delivery system using platform technology in a hot area of nanoparticles. VitaDAO doesn’t have a lot of gene therapies in its portfolio.

Reviewer 5

This is one of the more interesting companies in the LongBio field. The sister company of Oisin, called Entos Pharma, has a lot of traction with the PLV platform (two pharma deals recently with BioMarin and Lilly). The platform is very powerful and when applied to aging could be the revolution in gene therapy vectors that we’ve been waiting for!

  • Agree
  • Revisions Requested [Details in Comments]
  • Disagree
0 voters
1 Like

This looks like one of the strongest projects to come to VitaDAO. It looks like this would be worth higher than regular funding.

If the nanoparticles fuse with everything, to what extent are the red blood cells taking up the nanoparticles? To what extent do the nanoparticles cross the blood-brain barrier?

Why was the gastrocnemius chosen for the muscle study? What was the effect in larger muscles/muscle groups? It also looks like grip strength was proportional to body weight in both control and treated mice. Is this just an accelerated weight effect?

You must have tried this in mdx mice or some other muscular dystrophy mouse model. Did that fail?

Were any potential heart complications examined, especially in the monkeys? I thought one challenge with the myostatin/follistatin approach is cardiac hypertrophy, and those phenotypes can be subtle in mice.

How leaky are the chosen promoters? For the muscle, what is the expression in the heart?

For immunogenicity, wild type B6 mice underestimate cytokine responses. Did you try IL-1RA knockout mice?

For the adipocyte killing, when were the ob/ob mice treated? Was this early in life, or after they were mouse puddles?

6 Likes

This is an excellent proposal -

Lots of data - especially the fact that they have data in humans, already.
Clear IP Strategy, great commercial potential and well thought-through risks

my only concern is that the total amount requested is such that VitaDAO will get a very small share of it, and as a general rule I think it is better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond

Does the company have access to efficacy and safety data for competitors and can they be compared head-to-head?

2 Likes

Hi @bowtiedshrike thanks for your feedback! Here are Matt’s responses:

If the nanoparticles fuse with everything, to what extent are the red blood cells taking up the nanoparticles? To what extent do the nanoparticles cross the blood-brain barrier?

We have not observed transfection of red blood cells, this is likely due to a combination of their torroid shape (tight curves preclude transfection) and limited time in contact as they only bump into each other briefly in circulation.

The PLV formulation used does not cross the blood-brain barrier.

Why was the gastrocnemius chosen for the muscle study? What was the effect in larger muscles/muscle groups? It also looks like grip strength was proportional to body weight in both control and treated mice. Is this just an accelerated weight effect?

The gastrocnemius was selected because it’s easy to identify and cleanly extract in the model organism and has been analyzed in prior studies.

When administered systematically it appears to impact skeletal muscle uniformly. When administered locally, the target muscle appears to grow disproportionately large. The strength of normal skeletal muscle is proportional to its size. This feature is unchanged by follistatin. A well-documented phenotype of follistatin over-expressing organisms is increased lean mass. So the strength increase with weight is generally expected to be greater than increasing mass without changing body composition.

You must have tried this in mdx mice or some other muscular dystrophy mouse model. Did that fail?

We did not perform this study but it has been by others. It has even been administered in clinical trials for muscular dystrophies. In this context it does induce muscle hypertrophy, however, making a larger dystrophic myofiber that is still full of misfolded protein does not sufficiently address the underlying etiology to have therapeutic utility.

Were any potential heart complications examined, especially in the monkeys? I thought one challenge with the myostatin/follistatin approach is cardiac hypertrophy, and those phenotypes can be subtle in mice.

Follistatin only drives skeletal muscle hypertrophy, it does not act on cardiomyocytes or smooth muscle. It seems plausible that an extreme increase in body mass could indirectly result in cardiac hypertrophy but we do not anticipate this being an issue at the therapeutic doses we envision.

How leaky are the chosen promoters? For the muscle, what is the expression in the heart?

The CMV promoter is quite promiscuous but this doesn’t seem to result any adverse events in animals or published human trials. The TTR promoter is liver-specific and seems to be tightly restricted, but we have not analyzed every tissue given the safety of the CMV promoter with this transgene. We do not use a muscle-specific promoter. There is published data where a muscle-specific promoter was used but to our knowledge it was not pursued beyond preclinical studies due to its relatively poor performance.

For immunogenicity, wild type B6 mice underestimate cytokine responses. Did you try IL-1RA knockout mice?

We have not. We did perform tolerability studies in NHP though, and we think NHP is generally a better model for predicting safety of these kinds of therapies in humans.

For the adipocyte killing, when were the ob/ob mice treated? Was this early in life, or after they were mouse puddles?

Our adipocyte killing data was in human tissue explants. The fat killing data in the transgenic mice was published by others. The citation for this paper is in the image on the slide.

Hi @michele.gallia thanks for your comments, to answer your question on the data:

Does the company have access to efficacy and safety data for competitors and can they be compared head-to-head?

Slide 30 shows a tolerability comparison between MC3 LNPs, probably the most directly comparable vector and our PLVs, but the LNPs were so toxic that their dose could never reach the levels we use with PLVs. We do not have access to comprehensive data or materials from all in vivo vectors out there for broad and robust head-to-head comparisons.

1 Like

I seem to be far more bearish than the people in this thread. Company was incorporated 9 years ago and still only has mouse efficacy and monkey safety data? most of the data presented here is not even statistically significant. Happy to point out examples but it’s pretty much all of the figures. This is a massive round, 100M cap is so steep given their data package, and would need to know way more about this pharma licensing option before taking that seriously. Is it really 5 years from market? Is IND filed?

Like @bowtiedshrike I’m skeptical of the tolerability studies and would like to see the NHP data on this. Cas9 should be immunogenic unless these epitopes are specifically engineered to be nonimmunogenic.

Who raises off of safes after 9 years of incorporation that is quite sketchy?

This is cool tech for sure but what is vita going to with such a huge position here. Massive no from my side at current terms and the data presented.

4 Likes

Right, but my question was about comparison of the strength to mass ratio between controls and follistatin injected mice. It looks like if you normalize strength to mass, there are some differences early on between control and injected, but it levels out by the second or third time point. The graph is a little hard to interpret at % change instead of raw strength vs raw mass.

Maybe I got something confused here. I thought the PLV nanoparticles were nonspecific, but the muscle expression was specific to cell type, which means it must be promoter. But CMV is expressed by everything. How are you getting follistatin expression restricted to muscle cells? Or is it everywhere?

Same with the senolytic application. Is that CMV too?

Ok, thought you were getting those results in the mouse, which is a genetic fat loss system. The human explants were not as graphic. Is the 20% loss due to poor delivery, low dose, reduction in cell size, or something else?

1 Like

Not familiar with the biz side at all. Why is this sketchy? What is normal here? What milestones are you expecting from the company at 9 years?

Which ones? Looked to be stronger stats than some of the other projects we’ve seen. Fat loss in the human explants looks weakest to me. Or is it the loss of significance at the ‘washout 2’ in the frailty one that concerns you?

1 Like

Interesting point of view regarding the fact that it was incorporated 9 years ago - not enough experience.

Regarding statistical significance, that is something that in humans you usually reach only when performing clinical trials, and at a late stage more often than not (phase III) so for me it is already positive that they have data in humans as 99% of companies that we receive proposals from do not have them.

Cannot comment on animal models.

1 Like

You’d expect a priced round at this point. 9 years is way too long to be running on SAFEs. After 9 years a company is usually at least 2 priced rounds in, if not more. We should get an answer why this isn’t priced.


all of these error bars are overlapping


no p-values to be found


no whiskers here


only half of the error bars are shown here

1 Like

Is a SAFE worse terms for the company (or investors) than a priced round? To what extent is the SAFE to priced round conversion driven by the data stage vs time the company has existed? It sounds like they didn’t start raising until 2021… does that impact the ‘9 years in’ metric?

What is the general timeline/expectations for fundraising for any company? Does it change if you’re optimizing to keep equity, or want a low valuation for longer, or some of these other money decisions?

I agree it would be nice to see this one as a bar graph, with individual points for each mouse. Once the n gets high enough, the stat tests can give statistical significance even with overlapping error bars. Whether you believe that or not comes down to being an eyeball vs star person. This looked like the second weakest one to me, but if they used a few more mice, they might be able to get cleaner data.

With 10 mice, I would expect the Mann-Whitney to show some significance for the double treatment vs PBS. The individual treatments maybe not due to that early mortality, and convergence at the end. Dosing every 6 weeks seems high to me, but it seems reasonable prelim data and proof of concept.

I agree that this is the weakest bit of data, though my concern was that 20% was on the low side for an effect. There could be some technical reasons for that, or could be evidence that the tech doesn’t work as well as sold. While human data are nice, fixing an ob/ob mouse would be a lot cooler. It was disappointing to see that image was someone else’s system to genetically ablate fat cells.

I hate this style where people chop off half the error bars, too. But if we drew the other halves in, they won’t overlap, so they pass both the eyeball and star tests. This figure was ok for me, even if I’d prefer a different display option.

3 Likes

It all depends on the valuation, but here if the cap is high (100M) and the first priced round is much lower, it’s really bad signal. Later investors are typically anti overly complex cap tables as well, although this is not a deal breaker. Your point is salient though that it’s really only 2 years if you consider fundraising.

I think the most important piece of data to get is the pharma partnership. If that’s real then this 100 M cap is less absurd, otherwise I’d say this is insanely overpriced and should be a hard no.

1 Like

@benji , @bowtiedshrike thanks for your follow up comments. The Oisín team’s responses are as follows (in chronological order):

@benji

Like @bowtiedshrike I’m skeptical of the tolerability studies and would like to see the NHP data on this. Cas9 should be immunogenic unless these epitopes are specifically engineered to be nonimmunogenic

We are not expressing Cas9 (a bacterial protein). Inducible caspase-9 “iCasp9” is a suicide gene. Caspase-9 is a human protein, and it is conserved enough to not be noticeably immunogenic in mice or NHP. The inducible version of caspase-9 we are using has been engineered to incorporate a mutated human FKBP dimerization domain, it has been used in human trials without immunogenicity issues. This is something of a moot point however in that iCasp9 is a suicide gene, it is intended to kill the cells it is expressed in.

Who raises off of safes after 9 years of incorporation that is quite sketchy? You’d expect a priced round at this point. 9 years is way too long to be running on SAFEs. After 9 years a company is usually at least 2 priced rounds in, if not more. We should get an answer why this isn’t priced.

Oisín has raised two priced rounds since its incorporation, most recently in 2020. We expect to raise another priced round following this SAFE. Given the current environment and the size of the round, a SAFE seems to be a prudent choice.

@bowtiedshrike

Right, but my question was about comparison of the strength to mass ratio between controls and follistatin injected mice. It looks like if you normalize strength to mass, there are some differences early on between control and injected, but it levels out by the second or third time point. The graph is a little hard to interpret at % change instead of raw strength vs raw mass.

There is a significant increase in raw mass of the FST mice versus PBS and a commensurate increase to strength. However, it has been well documented that follistatin increases lean muscle mass and a commensurate increase to strength, which is what we have seen in our studies as well. Strength to weight ratio becomes more important in humans, which have a highly variable lean mass to total mass ratio. You are correct that muscle hypertrophy alone can only do so much to increase strength, and there have been studies shown that follistatin overexpression combined with exercise further increases its effect size. We are planning those kinds of studies with follistatin PLV therapy in our development pipeline.

Maybe I got something confused here. I thought the PLV nanoparticles were nonspecific, but the muscle expression was specific to cell type, which means it must be promoter. But CMV is expressed by everything. How are you getting follistatin expression restricted to muscle cells? Or is it everywhere? Same with the senolytic application. Is that CMV too?

The muscle expression shown is for wheat germ agglutinin, which illustrates the increase in muscle fiber size after administration of follistatin-expressing PLVs. Follistatin is a secreted protein, which we have driven by various promoters including CMV and TTR and exerts its effect on muscle tissue.

For senolytic applications we have utilized optimized variants of the p16 and p53 promoters, high expression of which are found in senescent and cancer cells. Evidence in both our hands and those of various other groups have found these promoters to be highly specific.

Ok, thought you were getting those results in the mouse, which is a genetic fat loss system. The human explants were not as graphic. Is the 20% loss due to poor delivery, low dose, reduction in cell size, or something else?

Since human explants cannot properly recreate the biophysical pressures of living tissue, that limits the ability of our therapy to properly diffuse throughout. Additionally, our development path includes optimization of dosage and formulation for fat-specific delivery.

@benji:

A pharma already taken a paid option to the follistatin program. There are also other pharma companies who have expressed interest in pursuing this program if the option expires. We cannot disclose the names of the pharma companies due to confidentiality obligations.

1 Like

Hiding behind confidentiality is a bit weak here. Can totally understand needing to withhold the name of the co and definitely not asking that they divulge that, but the terms of the option are so important. How much was paid for the option, what rights do they get if they exercise the option, and what triggers the option? This is the only revenue to the company I assume.

I think this is a no for me, so no need to entertain my questions further. They never addressed the statistical significance question and this seems way overpriced without knowing the terms of the option.

3 Likes

I agreed with @benji that there are places unsatisfied in the results and figures, which is different from the paper i usually read.

PLV did provide another solution or deliver method for gene therapy and other possible treatments.

Like @michele.gallia said, It is good to have the human result in the proposal.

As VitaDAO is not a formal centralized pharmaceutical company, I would like to support the novel delivery.

Here is a update about Lily on PVL

1 Like

@gweisha What is the size capacity for those Fusogenix Proteo lipid vesicles? Is there a limit of how much kbp can be put into each PLV? For example, can a genetic material that are 10~20mb long be packaged into those vesicles?

1 Like