Plenge Lab
Date posted: April 30, 2017 | Author: | No Comments »

Categories: Drug Discovery Human Genetics Immunogenomics

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine provides genetic support for a pharmacologically validated target, BAFF, in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.  But can human genetics also be used to estimate the target dose and a therapeutic window?

As readers of plengegen.com know, I am constantly on the lookout for published studies that provide insight into the utility of human genetics for drug discovery and development.  This past week there was a great post from Francis Collins on the role of the NIH in the discovery (in part via human genetics) and development of tofacitinib (see here), anakinra and potentially novel targets (e.g., STING) for inflammatory diseases (here).  Nature Reviews Drug Discovery published a News & Analysis on PCSK9 as a “fertile testing ground for new drug modalities including long-acting RNA interference drugs, vaccines against self-antigens, CRISPR therapeutics and small molecules that control ribosomal activity” (here).  New York City released information about a new public health initiative, The NYC Macroscope, which will use electronic health records (EHRs) to track conditions managed by primary care practices that are important to public health..and one day may be linked to genetic data for discovery research (that is me just speculating).…

Read full article...


As readers of my blog know, I am a strong supporter of a disciplined R&D model that focuses on: picking targets based on causal human biology (e.g., genetics); developing molecules that therapeutically recapitulate causal human biology; deploying pharmacodynamic biomarkers that also recapitulate causal human biology; and conducting small clinical proof-of-concept studies to quickly test therapeutic hypotheses (see Figure below).  As such, I am constantly on the look-out for literature or news reports to support / refute this model.  Each week, I cryptically tweet these reports, and occasionally – like this week – I have the time and energy to write-up the reports in a coherent framework.

Of course, this model is not so easy to follow in the real-world as has been pointed out nicely by Derek Lowe and others (see here).  A nice blog this week by Keith Robison (Warp Drive Bio) highlights why drug R&D is so hard.

Here are the studies or news reports from this week that support this model. 

(1) Picking targets based on causal human biology:  I am a proponent of an “allelic series” model for target identification.  Here are a couple of published reports that fit with this model.

Read full article...


Date posted: March 24, 2017 | Author: | No Comments »

Categories: Drug Discovery Human Genetics Precision Medicine

Like many, I waited with bated breath for results of the anti-PCSK9 (evolocumab) FOURIER cardiovascular outcome study last week. There have been many interesting commentaries written on the findings.  A few of my favorites are listed here (Matthew Herper), here (David Grainger), here (Derek Lowe), and here (Larry Husten), amongst others, with summaries provided at the end of this blog.  Most of these articles focused on clinical risk reduction vs. what was predicted for cardiovascular outcome, as well as whether payers will cover the cost of the drugs.  These are incredibly important topics, and I won’t comment on them further here, other than to say that the debate is now about who should get the drug and how much it should cost.

In this blog, I want to emphasize key points that pertain to human genetics and drug discovery.  And make no mistake: the anti-PCSK9 story and FOURIER clinical trial outcome is a triumph for genetics and drug discovery. This message seems to be getting muddled, however, given the current cost of evolocumab and the observation that cardiovascular risk reduction was less than expected, based on predictions from a 2005 study published by Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) (see Lancet study here).

Read full article...


Date posted: March 9, 2017 | Author: | No Comments »

Categories: Drug Discovery Human Genetics Precision Medicine

Yesterday I participated in the National Academy workshop, “Enabling Precision Medicine: The Role of Genetics in Clinical Drug Development” (link here).  There were a number of great talks from leaders across academics, industry and government (agenda here).

I was struck, however, by a consistent theme: most think that “precision medicine” will improve delivery of approved therapies or those that are currently being developed, whether or not the therapies were developed originally with precision medicine explicitly in mind.  Many assume that the observation that ~90% medicines are effective in only 30% to 50% is the result of biological differences in people across populations (see recent Forbes blog here).  This hypothesis is very appealing, as there are many unique features to each of us.

An alternative explanation is that most medicines developed without precision medicine from the beginning only work in ~30% patients because the medicines don’t target the biological pathways that make each of us unique.

I believe the most likely application is in the discovery and development of new therapies.  That is, I believe that the greatest impact will come when precision medicine strategies are incorporated into the very beginning of drug discovery, and will only rarely have an impact on therapies that were not developed with precision medicine in mind from the start.…

Read full article...


A new sickle cell anemia gene therapy study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (see here, here) gives hope to patients and the concept of rapidly programmable therapeutics based on causal human biology. But how close are we really?

It takes approximately 5-7 years to advance from a therapeutic hypothesis to an early stage clinical trial, and an additional 4-7 years of late stage clinical studies to advance to regulatory approval. This is simply too long, too inefficient and too expensive.

But how can timelines be shortened?

In the current regulatory environment, it is difficult to compress late stage development timelines. This leaves the time between target selection (or “discovery”) and early clinical trials (ideally clinical proof-of-concept, or “PoC”) as an important time to gain efficiencies. Further, discovery to PoC is an important juncture for minimizing failure rates in late development and delivering value to patients in the real world (see here).

Here, I argue that rapidly programmable therapeutics based a molecular understanding of the causal disease process is key to compressing the discovery to PoC timeline.

Imagine a world where the molecular basis of disease is completely understood. For common diseases, germline genetics contributes approximately two-thirds of risk; for rare diseases, germline genetics contributes nearly 100% of risk.…

Read full article...


It has been a good week for human genetics, with high-profile studies published in Science (here) and NEJM (here, here, here), and a summit at the White House on Precision Medicine. Here, I summarize the published studies and put them in context for drug discovery. But first, I want to briefly detour into a story about the Wright Brothers.

[Disclaimer: I am a Merck/MSD employee. The opinions I am expressing are my own and do not necessarily represent the position of my employer.]

In 1900, Wilbur and Orville Wright first began experiments with their flying machine. They defined three problems for manned flight: power, wing structure and control. As described beautifully in David McCullough’s book (review here), the brothers focused on the latter, control, which when sufficiently solved led to the first manned flight in 1903. Within ten years of solving the “flying problem”, aviation technology progressed to the point that manned flights were routine.

By analogy, I would argue that there are three key challenges for drug discovery: targets, biomarkers and clinical proof-of-concept studies. The key problem to solve is target selection. Today, we do not know enough about causal human biology to select targets, and as a consequence we have a crisis in cost (drugs are too expensive to develop because of failures at the most costly stage, late development) and innovation (for those drugs that work, there is insufficient differentiation from standard-of-care treatments to change health care outcomes).…

Read full article...


Date posted: February 14, 2016 | Author: | No Comments »

Categories: Drug Discovery Immunogenomics

Today was the second coldest day of my life. When I woke up in Ludlow, Vermont, it was -20 degrees Fahrenheit; with wind chill it was -45° F. As the kids played downstairs, I caught up on my reading comforted by a raging log fire.

The topic de jour: non-genetic examples of causal human biology for drug discovery.   Here, the experiment of nature was the formation of autoantibodies against a target and pathway implicated in acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a life-threatening disorder.

The study that caught my interest, “Caplacizumab for Acquired Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura”, was published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. I won’t say much about the NEJM article itself, but I will briefly discuss the background leading up to the clinical trial. The key point: autoantibodies against ADAMTS13 pinpointed the target and pathway as causal in the ideal model organism, humans.

The story starts in 1976, when whole blood exchange transfusion resulted in clinical benefit in 8 of 14 patients with TTP. The following year, it was determined that the plasma fraction of the blood was the source of clinical benefit.   It took approximately 20 years, however, to identify the deficient plasma factor as ADAMTS13, with deficiency caused by IgG autoantibodies that inhibit the enzyme.…

Read full article...


Date posted: August 21, 2015 | Author: | No Comments »

Categories: Drug Discovery Embedded Genomics Human Genetics

I say article of the week, but I have been lazy this summer (or maybe just consumed by other things).  My last “article of the week” was in May and my last Plengegen blog post was over a month ago!

By now everyone knows the PCSK9 story. Human genetics identified the target; functional work in mouse and human cells led to a mechanistic understanding of PCSK9’s role in LDL receptor recycling; therapeutic modulation was shown to lower LDL cholesterol in clinical trials; and the FDA approved drugs based on LDL lowering, with outcome trials underway to demonstrate (presumably) cardiovascular benefit. What the story highlights is that a mechanistic understanding of causal pathways in human disease is key to the success of translating targets into therapies. Further, the PCSK9 story underscores the importance of a simple biomarker (LDL cholesterol) to measure a complex causal pathway in a clinical trial.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) provides insight into a putative causal pathway in obesity, and thus a potentially a new mechanism for therapeutic modulation. The accompanying Editorial also provides a nice perspective.

[Disclaimer: I am a Merck/MSD employee. The opinions I am expressing are my own and do not necessarily represent the position of my employer.

Read full article...