Epicrispr banks $68M to test epigenetic editing on rare muscle disease
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter.
Epicrispr Biotechnologies has raised $68 million in pursuit of a first-of-its-kind genetic medicine for a rare neuromuscular disorder called facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy.
EPI-321, the startup's lead program, uses CRISPR tools to stop errant expression of a gene implicated in the muscle-wasting condition. Epicrispr will start a Phase 1 trial this year in New Zealand, according to the company's Wednesday statement.
The San Francisco Bay Area biotech's Series B round was led by Ally Bridge Group and involved Solve FSHD, an advocacy group formed by Lululemon Athletica founder Chip Wilson.
FSHD is a rare neuromuscular disorder estimated to affect about 870,000 people worldwide. The disease is characterized by progressive muscle weakness that begins in the face, back and upper arms and can leave people in wheelchairs or with debilitating pain and fatigue.
Though there are no available medications for FSHD, drugmakers in recent years have zeroed in on a gene called DUX4. In FSHD, a genetic error causes DUX4 to be overexpressed, eventually resulting in muscle degeneration and atrophy. Biotech companies have been working on various ways, from small molecule drugs to gene therapies, to stop that from happening.
One high-profile effort, an oral drug developed by Fulcrum Therapeutics and Sanofi, failed in Phase 3 testing last year. But other companies, including Avidity Biosciences, Novartis, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals and Dyne Therapeutics have drugs in development as well. There are currently more than a dozen active DUX4-targeting drug programs, according to the nonprofit FSHD Society.
Epicrispr says its approach is unique among that group. The company is using CRISPR tools to turn genes on or off instead of altering DNA directly. In FSHD, it's harnessing CRISPR to bind a precise region of the DUX4 gene and make a chemical modification. The hope is doing so might stop expression of the encoded protein, without the health risks associated with cutting into DNA.
According to Amber Salzman, the company's CEO, that strategy has shown potential in preclinical tests to impact muscle function and block the DUX4 protein from 'seeping out.'
'We're going after the absolute root cause' of the disease, she said. 'It's a really, really different approach.'
Salzman has for years worked on genetic disorders as a biotech executive and patient advocate. While at GSK many years ago, her son and two nephews were diagnosed with a rare disease called adrenoleukodystrophy. She connected with prominent gene therapy researcher Jim Wilson, met several other experts in the field and started the nonprofit Stop ALD Foundation.
One of Salzman's nephews died from ALD in 2004. But her son and second nephew received a treatment that was later approved as Skysona. In the meantime, Salzman worked at multiple biotech startups, including eye gene therapy developer Adverum Biotechnologies. In 2021, a recruiter gauged her interest in leading Epicrispr, which was then known as Epic Bio.
By then, the startup had already started working on FSHD — a disease that affected her husband's family, Salzman said. That, and the potential to use epigenetic editing against a wide range of diseases, convinced her to take the job.
'All of a sudden, I found a company that had addressed all the limitations I'd come across in genetic medicine,' she said.
Epicrispr raised a $55 million Series A round in 2022. Along with FSHD, it's working on drugs for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, a pair of eye diseases and certain undisclosed blood cancers. All of its work is preclinical.
The company was co-founded by Stanford researcher Stanley Qi, who worked closely with gene editing pioneer Jennifer Doudna at UC Berkeley.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
FDA meeting gives window into gene therapy field's angst
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Anyone looking for evidence of genetic medicine's enormous promise need only read of KJ Muldoon. The 10-month-old infant headed home from a Philadelphia hospital this week, dressed in a celebratory cap and gown, after his life-threatening disease was successfully treated with a bespoke CRISPR therapy. While baby KJ is not cured, the treatment has stabilized his disease, a rare liver condition known as CSP1 deficiency, to such extent he's able to resume eating a normal diet. Doctors, who hurriedly designed and constructed KJ's custom therapy in a matter of months, have backed off supportive medications and hope he'll no longer need a liver transplant. 'Each year, 10 million babies are born with one of about 10,000 known rare genetic diseases, many of which are, in principle, now treatable with genetic medicines,' David Liu, a pioneering CRISPR scientist whose laboratory helped in KJ's treatment, said at a meeting hosted by the Food and Drug Administration Thursday. 'The opportunity created by this perfect storm moment in scientific, medical, regulatory and manufacturing innovation is to provide on-demand genetic treatments like KJ's at scale.' Yet Liu and 22 other gene therapy experts and advocates who attended Thursday's roundtable didn't travel to the regulator's headquarters in White Oak, Maryland to extol the field's advances. By and large, they came to warn of a crisis. There are now dozens of approved cell and gene therapies in the U.S., some of which offer near-curative potential for serious diseases like spinal muscular atrophy, sickle cell disease and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, the sector that's produced these therapies is struggling. Investors have soured on genetic medicine as developers struggle to prove they can profitably sell the complex and often hugely expensive treatments. Biotechnology companies are cutting research, laying off staff and, in some cases, shutting down. Large pharmaceutical firms are no longer willing to bet billions of dollars they can surmount the regulatory and reimbursement hurdles that stand in the way of many of these therapies. And academic labs, still bursting with promising new ideas for technologies like CRISPR, now fear their projects will wither on the vine. 'We estimate that over 100 rare disease gene therapy products that had reached clinical stage have been discontinued since 2023 — not because of treatment failure, but because of the risk of market failure,' said Terence Flotte, dean of the University of Massachusetts' T.H. Chan School of Medicine and president of the American Society of Cell and Gene Therapy. 'The scientific advances that we have witnessed are just nothing short of spectacular. It's not hyperbole,' said Crystal Mackall, a professor at Stanford University and founding director of the cancer cell therapy center there. 'Despite this unconditional scientific success, the field is really struggling to deliver these therapies to all patients who can benefit.' Their warnings found a receptive audience in FDA leadership. Commissioner Martin Makary and top official Vinay Prasad, who leads the office that oversees cell and gene therapies, were sympathetic to experts' arguments and pledged to help. 'We are going to continue the successes of the FDA in facilitating the regulatory process for these conditions and these products,' said Makary. 'We're also going to try to improve by creating more efficiencies.' Prasad, who in the past has criticized the FDA's accelerated approval of a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, showed support for flexible trial designs and endpoints when appropriate for the disease or treatment. He also noted the agency accepts that cell and gene therapies don't always comes with transformative potential. 'We understand that progress is not always made in a single leap,' he added. 'We will consider incremental steps forward, because those add up.' The assembled experts came with lists of possible solutions. Carl June, a famed immunologist and cell therapy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, called for the U.S. to borrow from the two-tier regulatory system used in China, which allows for medical institutions to more rapidly start first-in-human trials under the supervision of local review boards. Don Kohn, a University of California, Los Angeles scientist who has developed gene therapies, asked the FDA to reduce the requirements for 'comparability' testing when companies transition production from academic to commercial settings. Others emphasized the importance of regulatory awards, like the priority review vouchers granted by the FDA to developers of certain therapies, who often sell them for needed capital. And many called for the agency to share more feedback and lessons learned from the applications they receive from industry. Behind all of their suggestions was a consistent concern: If regulators don't help solve the field's problems, the U.S. risks losing its leadership in developing the kinds of treatments that can cure diseases. 'If we don't adapt, the next generation of treatments will emerge abroad,' said June. 'The future of medicine with cell and gene therapy is at stake.' Their message seemed to be heard by Makary and Prasad, who noted that many of the issues raised are on their radar at FDA. Prasad, for instance, noted that they hope to redact and make available more internal documents to aid developers' understanding of what the FDA is looking for. 'This is not a horse and pony show to say we did this,' added Makary. 'This is an honest listening session.' Recommended Reading A bespoke CRISPR therapy suggests a blueprint for treating 'N-of-1' diseases
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Otsuka tops Vera with kidney drug data; Regenxbio sinks on Duchenne update
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Today, a brief rundown of news involving Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Arvinas, as well as updates from Regenxbio, Vigil Neuroscience and Sagimet Biosciences that you may have missed. Vera Therapeutics lost nearly a third of its market value Friday after Otsuka Pharmaceutical presented late-stage study data on a rival drug it's developing for the kidney disease IgA nephropathy. At a medical meeting, Otsuka said its therapy, sibeprenlimab, led to a 51% reduction in proteinuria, a key marker of kidney health, after nine months of treatment. Though cross-trial comparisons can be misleading, Vera's therapy led to a 42% reduction in proteinuria compared to placebo at a similar timepoint in its own Phase 3 study, causing investors to sell off company shares. Still, some analysts defended Vera. Jefferies' Farzin Haque cautioned not to 'overinterpret the data' and argued the two datasets 'are not clinically or statistically different for commercial uptake.' The Food and Drug Administration could approve Otsuka's drug by Nov. 28. On Monday, Vera said it intends to file an accelerated approval application in the fourth quarter. — Ben Fidler Arvinas and partner Pfizer have filed for a U.S. approval of their experimental protein-degrading drug for breast cancer, Arvinas said Friday. The two submitted the therapy, vepdegestrant, for use in people with estrogen-receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer and a mutation in the ESR1 gene. The application is based on Phase 3 data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this week showing the drug held tumors in check longer than a standard treatment. That benefit was modest, however, and wasn't observed in the overall study population. — Delilah Alvarado Regenxbio released new data Thursday showing a potential impact on muscle function among Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients who received its experimental gene therapy in an early-stage clinical trial. Regenxbio said those given the dose it's using in pivotal testing outperformed how historical data suggests they might on multiple widely used assessments of functional benefits. Still, shares fell by double digits, as some key information was missing from the update, the treatment's effects appear to be 'plateauing' and there is concern the data may not be strong enough to support an accelerated approval, wrote Jefferies analyst Maury Raycroft. Regenxbio expects to report pivotal data next year and has said it intends to seek a speedy approval afterwards, based on the therapy's ability to produce a tiny version of a muscle-protecting protein. — Ben Fidler Vigil Neuroscience reported Wednesday the failure of a mid-stage trial meant to prove its most advanced drug works as intended. The study enrolled 20 people with 'ALSP,' a rare disorder hallmarked by the erosion of white matter in the brain. All participants received Vigil's drug, VGL101, which is designed to boost the TREM2 proteins that help control inflammation in the brain. The company said that while showing favorable safety and tolerability, its treatment had no beneficial effects on important markers of effectiveness or biological activity. As such, a separate, so-called long-term extension study is being discontinued. Sanofi is in the process of acquiring Vigil for access to a different TREM2-targeting medicine. Per terms of that deal, rights to VGL101 will be returned to its original licensor, Amgen. — Jacob Bell Shares of Sagimet Biosciences have climbed nearly 40% since partner Ascletis Bioscience on Wednesday reported the company's drug denifanstat succeeded in a Phase 3 trial in China in people with moderate-to-severe acne. The drug produced 'compelling efficacy' in the trial with only mild-to-moderate side effects, which could have positive implications for its ability to treat metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, Leerink Partners analyst Thomas Smith wrote in a research note. A 2019 partnership handed Ascletis rights in greater China to denifanstat. Sagimet could receive up to $122 million in future payments, as well as sales royalties, if the drug is approved. — Ben Fidler
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
