Connect with us

Uncategorized

At Chardan Conference, David Liu Foresees First Prime Editing Clinical Trial in 2024

In releasing second-quarter results in August, Prime Medicine conveyed the possibility of a first trial for its gene editing technology next year by publicly…

Published

on

By Alex Philippidis

NEW YORK—David R. Liu, PhD, the genome editing pioneer whose Broad Institute lab developed both base editing and prime editing technologies over the past decade, told an audience of investors that prime editing is on track to join base editing in human clinical trials in less than a year.

“Likely the first clinical trial will be in 2024,” Liu said, speaking via video at the Chardan 7th Annual Genetic Medicines Conference, held this week in New York City. “Prime editors, we anticipate, will be in the clinic next year.”

David R. Liu, PhD, Broad Institute: Richard Merkin Professor and Director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare, Core Institute Member and Vice-Chair of the Faculty, Director of the Chemical Biology and Therapeutic Sciences Program; Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator; Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences and Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University

Liu is a co-founder of Prime Medicine, the publicly traded company formed to commercialize prime editing by developing treatments based on applying the technology’s “search and replace” approach to genome editing.

In releasing second-quarter results in August, Prime Medicine conveyed the possibility of a first trial for its gene editing technology next year by publicly including among its anticipated upcoming milestones: “Complete first IND filing as early as 2024.” Additional IND filings are anticipated in 2025, Prime Medicine said in a company presentation to investors last month.

By contrast, base editing technology, first disclosed in 2016 by Liu’s lab—is under investigation in six ongoing clinical trials.

Prime Medicine has not yet released which of its 18 pipeline programs will be selected as its first clinical-phase candidate.

IND-enabling candidate

According to Prime Medicine’s presentation last month, only one of its programs has reached the phase of IND-enabling studies—a blood-targeting candidate for chronic granulomatous disease (CGD), designed to be administered ex vivo.

Three other programs are in lead optimization phases—a Wilson’s disease candidate targeting liver tissue and using lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery; a retinitis pigmentosa/rhodopsin candidate targeting eye tissue and using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector delivery; and a neuromuscular tissue targeting candidate for Friedreich’s ataxia also delivered via AAV.

The rest of Prime Medicine’s pipeline programs are in preclinical discovery phases.

During the conference, Liu noted that AAV has fallen out of favor with some gene therapy developers, concerned about harm to patients from needed redosing, as that will often induce high-titer neutralizing antibodies that make it difficult for a second AAV dose to be effective. That’s less likely to be a problem in genome editing, Liu asserted, as long as the editing therapy is effective enough to be a one-time treatment.

“If you look at some of the new generation AAVs that have liver detargeting, that go to previously challenging organs like the brain or muscle or lung, even in primates in some cases, I actually think those AAVs are going to be powerful tools for the delivery of these gene editing agents, especially because we anticipate that we will only need to deliver them once to effect a permanent benefit for the patient,” Liu said.

Both prime and base editing are designed to engineer precise base substitutions while avoiding double-stranded DNA breaks (as occurs in CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing). As a postdoctoral fellow in Liu’s lab, Alexis Komor, PhD, spearheaded the development of the first base editing technology, which could install specific base substitutions (C to T or G to A) without cleaving DNA. Eighteen months later, her colleague Nicole Gaudelli, PhD, developed a complementary adenine (A to G) base editor. Both base editing approaches were detailed in separate papers published in Nature.

In 2019, Liu, former postdoc Andrew Anzalone MD, PhD, and colleagues detailed prime editing in Nature. In prime editing, the desired edit is supplied in an extension to the guide RNA, which is then converted to DNA using the enzyme reverse transcriptase. The technology can introduce targeted insertions, deletions, and all 12 possible base-to-base conversions.

Generating positive results

In May, Liu and colleagues published in Nature Biotechnology a paper entitled “Efficient prime editing in mouse brain, liver and heart with dual AAVs”, in which they sought to address bottlenecks limiting AAV-mediated prime editing in vivo by developing AAV-PE vectors with increased PE expression, stability of prime editing guide RNA, and modulation of DNA repair.

The study detailed how two dual-AAV systems were developed—v1em and v3em PE-AAV. They generated positive results by enabling therapeutically relevant levels of prime editing in mouse brain (up to 42% efficiency in cortex), liver (up to 46%) and heart (up to 11%).

The group declared that the results represented “the first prime editing in postnatal brain and heart and substantially higher AAV-mediated in vivo prime editing efficiencies than have been previously reported in the liver.”

The dual-AAV systems were also used to install the rare Apolipoprotein E Christchurch (APOE3 R136S) variant in vivo for Alzheimer’s disease in astrocytes, and the dominant variant of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) Q152H (mouse Pcsk9 Q155H), associated with a reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and protection from coronary artery disease in hepatocytes.

“Our results advance the potential of prime editing for basic research and therapeutic applications and establish optimized PE-AAV systems as an effective in vivo PE delivery method,” Liu and colleagues concluded in the study.

Correcting CGD mutation

Also in May, Prime Medicine researchers presented updated preclinical data showing the potential of prime edited cells to correct the causative mutation of chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) at the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) 26th Annual Meeting, held in Los Angeles.

In an abstract, “Prime Editing of Human CD34+ Long-Term Hematopoietic Stem Cells Precisely Corrects the Causative Mutation of p47phox Chronic Granulomatous Disease and Restores NADPH Oxidase Activity in Myeloid Progeny,” the researchers reported greater than 90% prime editing in CD34cells from four donors—a finding they said showed their technology to be highly reproducible.

“These data show that prime editing precisely corrects the ΔGT mutation at NCF1 in p47phox CGD patient CD34+ cells and restores NADPH oxidase activity and myeloid cell function in progeny of these PE-corrected cells, thus representing a potential curative approach for p47phox CGD patients,” the Prime Medicine researchers concluded.

Earlier data showed the ability of prime editing to correct a CGD causative mutation in CD34+ cells ex vivo, with the prime edited CD34cells engrafting long-term in vivo and editing levels greater than 92%.

During the ASGCT conference—which featured a presidential symposium keynote address by Liu—Prime Medicine highlighted its Prime Editing Assisted Site-Specific Integrase Gene Editing (PASSIGE) platform, showcasing its potential application to generate multiplex-edited chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells for the treatment of some cancers and immune diseases, without the use of viruses.

Liu co-founded Prime Medicine with Anzalone, currently the company’s head of the prime editing platform. Anzalone detailed his creation of prime editing and career in genome editing earlier this year in an exclusive interview on GEN Edge’s video interview series “Close to the Edge”, and published in our sister journal GEN Biotechnology.

Genome editing methods

Base and prime editing, Liu told conferees, were two of three different ways that have emerged for editing the genomes of human cells currently that meet the criteria of reasonably efficient and reasonably specific, used by hundreds of laboratories, and well-validated. The third, he said, was using CRISPR nucleases, which can result in gene disruption and creation of indels.

There are three base-editing candidates now in clinical trials:

  • BEAM-101: Beam Therapeutics—co-founded by Liu with Feng Zhang, PhD, and Keith Joung, MD—is assessing BEAM-101, delivered via autologous bone marrow transplant, to treat severe sickle cell disease in adults in the Phase I/II BEACON trial (NCT05456880). Beam said in August it had enough consented patients to fill its sentinel cohort and begin an expansion cohort. Beam expects to report initial patient data from BEACON in 2024.
  • BEAM-201: Beam last month dosed the first patient in a Phase I/II trial (NCT05885464) evaluating BEAM-201, a multiplex base-edited CAR-T cell therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoma (T-ALL/T-LL).
  • VERVE-101: Verve Therapeutics is studying VERV-101—the first in vivo base editing therapy to reach the clinic—to treat heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) in the Phase Ib heart-1 trial (NCT05398029), enrolling patients in New Zealand and the U.K. Verve expects to complete patient enrollment outside the U.S. after the FDA placed a hold on its IND application pending additional data.

The progression of base and prime editing from research papers to preclinical to clinical trials have both been swift, Liu observed. “These are breathtakingly fast transitions from academia to actual clinical applications,” Liu said, paying tribute to numerous laboratories advancing these technologies. “There are, for example, more than 1,000 research papers published on base editors and prime editors,” he said.

“Our lab has not published most of those,” Liu quipped, drawing laughs. “And it’s something that has really helped establish the robustness of the technology, de-risk it, improve it, and given us and the patient communities some confidence that it can be deployed in ways that are useful for helping patients.”

Alex Philippidis is Senior Business Editor of GEN.

The post At Chardan Conference, David Liu Foresees First Prime Editing Clinical Trial in 2024 appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending