A Problem for Society

1
A Problem for Society
2
(No Transcript)
3
The economic reality

• 200B in RD invested in government and
  academia
• 50B in RD invested by biotech and pharma
• 60 approved drugs are approved
• 40-45 of these are re-worked existing drugs
• 15-20 are new chemical entities
• 1 new medicine per 12B spent in health
  research

4
What costs the most? Where are inefficiencies?
Attrition in the clinic
5
Why the attrition?Lack of scientific
understanding
6
Conclusion

• Current economic structure of drug discovery
  process not sustainable
• Society expects new medicines
• Long-term productivity gains can only be made
  by focusing on the underlying scientific problems

7
The Other Problem
8
The Human Genome

• 23,000 genes
• Complete understanding essential to increase
  productivity of drug discovery
• Too expensive using traditional methods
• And so we enter the genome age
• - Parallelization of research
• - Different way of asking questions

9
The Combined Problem
10
The State of the Union

• Current economic structure of drug discovery
  process not sustainable
• Society expects new medicines
• Scale and scope of problem too large for any
  group or sector to tackle
• New organizational structures, new economic
  models and new ways of managing science are
  required

11
Increasing productivity What can we do?

• Stop the blame game stop whining
• The science is not there yet the participants
  are struggling
• - All participants (the public, professors,
  investors, industry, governments) are acting
  perfectly appropriately within the drug
  discovery system, which evolved to its current
  state over the past 30 years.
• The public must take responsibility and drive the
  process because
• - The public pay for the research
• - We are the major shareholders of industry
• - We all need/want new medicines
• 3. Focus on the science it is only long-term
  solution
• - What science to pursue?
• - How to organize scientific approach when skills
  are in different places?

12
A plan for open access research into attrition

• Form research partnerships to tackle science
• - Academia and industry each bring something to
  table
• Funded by both public and private sectors
• Operated within academic institutions
• Very defined objectives managed jointly by all
  funders
• All results into public domain, with no
  restriction on use

13
The concept
14
The problems are best tackled in Public Private
Partnerships that operate within Creative Commons
15
An example of such a PPPThe Structural Genomics
Consortium

• 3D structures of proteins highly enabling in
  drug discovery estimated to shed 18 months of
  development time
• Risk of 3D structures becoming proprietary in
  private sector
• Academic groups focusing on proteins of little
  direct therapeutic relevance
• To deliver structures at reduced cost (then est.
  gt USD400,000/structure)
• To minimize duplication of between industry and
  academia (and within industry)
• To create open access for technologies and
  methods

16
Creation of SGC 1999-2003

• 1999
• Discussions initiated by Rob Cooke _at_GSK and
  colleagues
• Major goal was to join forces and launch a
  pre-competitive organisation devoted to early
  targets of medical relevance
• gt10 Pharmas and Biotechs Wellcome Trust in
  early discussions, built on SNP consortium model
• 2001 - 2003
• 2001 Business plan prepared, GSK (10) and WT
  (90) committed
• 2003 CEO recruited.
• 2003 Consortium of Canadian investors committed
  to project
• 2003 Strategic planning initiated in August and
  Ramp-Up in October

17
The SGC Principles

• Organized as charitable company
• Consortium members set objectives for SGC
  scientists
• Oversight through Board of Directors and
  Scientific Committee, whose members are
  representatives of funders
• Protein structures must go into public domain
  without restrictions
• No prior access to protein structural data for
  sponsors
• Quantitative objectives (350 structures by July
  2007) set out by Funders

18
Strategic decisions to make in 2003

• Distribute science among many labs or focus?
• One or a few sites?
• Industrial or academic culture?
• Situate the labs in industrial parks or at
  Universities?
• How to manage relationship with University?
• What is recruiting strategy?
• How to convince academic scientists to work
  against milestones?
• How much to focus on delivery vs technology
  development?
• How much emphasis on publication vs deliverables?
• What was communication plan?
• How to collaborate with other international
  efforts?

19
What we did

• Focus science in 2-3 sites within Universities
• Recruit CSOs who buy into the concept
• Give CSOs broad overarching organizational and
  scientific plan, but let unique culture develop
  within that framework (build culture around CSO).
• Recruit top PIs and build science around their
  expertise.
• Ensure that a large fraction of the organization
  are training (not staff scientists)
• Focus on deliverables and technology will be
  developed to meet objectives
• Convince Board that meeting objectives requires
  top scientists and top scientists need to publish
  (a lot)
• Ignore all other efforts and hunker down and
  deliver. Similarly avoid broad communication
  plan and focus on science.

20
The SGC Organization
Board of Directors Wayne Hendrickson, Columbia,
Chair
Scientific Committee Kirk Clark, Chair, Novartis
CEO Aled Edwards
SGC-Oxford 65 staff Chas Bountra
SGC-Toronto 80 staff Cheryl Arrowsmith
SGC-Stockholm 25 staff Pär Nordlund
21
Generic SGC Organization (e.g. Oxford)
Chas Bountra
N. Telfer, Administrator E. James, Laboratory
Manager S. Muller, Res. Coord. (50) V. Barnsley,
Exec Assistant V. Hudson Secretary P. Powell,
Lab Support Glasswasher/TA
Research Informatics (4)
Administration (3.5)
B. Marsden J. Bray Sci WH Lee, Sci A. Andersson,
Sci
Support (3)
Biotechnology (9)
Biology1 DRM (11)
Biology 2 TMRS (11)
Biology 3 PDS (11)
Chemical Biology (8)
Protein Crystallography (11)
O. Gileadi Mol Biol N. Burgess TL B. Shresta,
PDF P. Savitsky, PDF11 C. Smee TA Biochem S.
Colebrook, TL A. Haroniti, PDF C. Johansson,
PDF12 G. Berridge, TA
U. Oppermann Biochem 1 K. Kavanagh, TL S. Ng,
PDFP. Lukacic, PDF E. Dubnina TA Biochem
2 Team Leader X. Wu PDF PDF TA Prot. Eng. K.
Guo, TL N. Shafqat, PDF
D. Doyle Biochem 1 J. Elkins, TL X. Yang
PDF M Soundararajan, PDF TA Biochem 2 (TMR) K.
Fotinou, TL H. Meka, PDFPDF TA Prot. Eng. Team
Leader Y. Zhao, PDF
L. Ball Biophysics F. Niesen, TL O. Fedorov,
PDF E. Longmann, PDF12 TA Protein Chemistry F.
Sobott, TL PDF TA
S. Knapp Biochem 1 A. Barr, TL J. Eswaran,
PDF PDF TA Biochem 2 P. Rellos, TL12 S. Das
PDF P. Philippakopoulos, PDF TA Prot. Eng. A.
Bullock TL A. Amos TA
F. Von Delft Meth Tech Computational, Sci Lab
Engineer Biol Cryst 1 Team Leader E.
Ugochukwu, PDF12 J. Debreczeni, PDF Biol Cryst
2 Team Leader A. Jansson, PDF G. Bunkoczi,
PDF Synchrotron PDF
22
SGC Progress (2004-2007)

• Phase I July 2004 June 2007
• Total funding CDN85M
• - 5 of world structural biology budget
• Total goal 50 112 224 386 Structures
• Goal reached in March 2007
• 425 approved structures to date (470 total)
• - Targets pre-judged to be of value to community
• 125,000 USD/structure
• - Estimated 1/2-1/5 of cost in academia or
  industry
• 25 of all new human PDB entries in 2006
• 40 of all apicomplexan PDB entries 2006
• Over 75 publications
• Over 140 formal collaborations
• One technology spin-off commercialized

23
Dealing with change of leadership
24
Organization and funding from 2007-2011
25
The Structural Genomics ConsortiumA model for
open access public-private partnership
Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) is a
public-private partnership with a mandate to
place protein structures of relevance to human
health into the public domain, free from
restrictions on use. Focus on proteins from
human and human parasites.
26
The Structural Genomics ConsortiumA model for
open access public-private partnership
Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) is a
public-private partnership with a mandate to
place protein structures of relevance to human
health into the public domain, free from
restrictions on use. Focus on proteins from
human and human parasites.
27
The Structural Genomics ConsortiumA model for
open access public-private partnership
Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) is a
public-private partnership with a mandate to
place protein structures of relevance to human
health into the public domain, free from
restrictions on use. Focus on proteins from
human and human parasites. Funders (30M
per annum) Canada, GSK, Ontario, Merck,
Novartis, Sweden, Knut and Alice Wallenberg
Foundation, Wellcome Trust
28
The Structural Genomics ConsortiumA model for
open access public-private partnership
Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) is a
public-private partnership with a mandate to
place protein structures of relevance to human
health into the public domain, free from
restrictions on use. Focus on proteins from
human and human parasites. Funders (30M
per annum) Canada, GSK, Ontario, Merck,
Novartis, Sweden, Knut and Alice Wallenberg
Foundation, Wellcome Trust Protein
targets Proteins are nominated by the Funders
to the SGC Target List, which now comprises 2400
proteins. Targets are selected with therapeutic
view. No funder (public or private) has access
to progress of SGC Targets through pipeline.
29
The Structural Genomics ConsortiumA model for
open access public-private partnership
Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) is a
public-private partnership with a mandate to
place protein structures of relevance to human
health into the public domain, free from
restrictions on use. Focus on proteins from
human and human parasites. Funders (30M
per annum) Canada, GSK, Ontario, Merck,
Novartis, Sweden, Knut and Alice Wallenberg
Foundation, Wellcome Trust Protein
targets Proteins are nominated by the Funders
to the SGC Target List, which now comprises 2400
proteins. Targets are selected with therapeutic
view. No funder (public or private) has access
to progress of SGC Targets through
pipeline. Objectives 386 structures of
proteins from Target List by July 2007 (achieved
455) 660 more structures by July 2011 (including
8 integral membrane proteins)
30
What defines a Consortium Member?

• Members invest 3M GBP or more into the SGC and
  get
• Seat on Board of Directors
• Seat on Scientific Committee
• Right to put 200 proteins on SGC Target List
• Investment governed by SGC Funding Agreement
• Funding to Institutions governed by SGC grant
  conditions

31
The SGC Governance

• Board of Directors responsible for
• Financial aspects
• Collaborations
• Intellectual property
• Remuneration
• Strategic directions
• Scientific Committee responsible for
• Managing Target List
• Ensuring scientific objectives are met
• Approval of new scientific thrusts

32
The SGC Board
Wayne Hendrickson, Columbia University
(Chair) Hans Widmer, Novartis Kevin Lumb,
Merck Rob Cooke, GSK Rod McInnes, Canadian
Institutes for Health Research Michael Morgan,
Genome Canada Allison Barr, Ontario Ministry of
Research and Innovation Sture Forsen, Swedish
Funding Consortium Alan Schafer, Wellcome Trust
Kirk Clark, Novartis (Chair of Scientific
Committee) Becky Aarons (Corporate Secretary,
Wellcome Trust)
33
The Scientific Committee
Kirk Clark, Novartis (Chair) Lisa Shewchuk,
GSK Mike Ferguson, Dundee (Trust) Peter Dirks,
Toronto (Ontario) Kalle Heldin, Uppsala
(Sweden) Tony Pawson, Toronto (CIHR) Brett
Finlay, UBC (Genome Canada) Paul Darke,
Merck David Stuart, Oxford (CEO) Tom Terwilliger,
Los Alamos (CEO) Stephen Frye, UNC (CEO)
34
Summary of Progress (May 1, 2008)

• SGC has produced 600 human structures and 100
  structures from human parasites
• SGC contributed 22 of all new structures of
  human proteins into the PDB in last year
• SGC contributed gt90 of all new structures of
  Plasmodia proteins into the PDB in last year
• SGC scientists publish papers are written long
  after coordinates are freely available
• Bullock AN, et al Crystal structure of the
  SOCS2-elongin C-elongin B complex defines a
  prototypical SOCS box ubiquitin ligase. PNAS
  1037637 (2006)
• Kavanagh KL, et al The molecular mechanism of
  nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates as
  antiosteoporosis drugs. PNAS 1037829 (2006)
• Schuetz A, et al Structural basis for molecular
  recognition and presentation of histone H3 by
  WDR5. EMBO J. 254245 (2006)
• Lunin VV, et al Crystal structure of the CorA
  Mg2 transporter. Nature 440 833 (2006)
• Vedadi M, et al Chemical screening methods to
  identify ligands that promote protein stability,
  protein crystallization, and structure
  determination. PNAS 10315835 (2006)
• Yang X, et al Structural basis for
  protein-protein interactions in the 14-3-3
  protein family. PNAS 10317237 (2006)
• Abdullah, A., et al Structural and Chemical
  Profiling of the Human Cytosolic
  Sulfotransferases. PLoS Biology 5e165 (2007)
• Ng SS, et al. Crystal structures of histone
  demethylase JMJD2A reveal basis for substrate
  specificity. Nature. 2007 44887 (2007)
• Tempel W, et al. Nicotinamide Riboside Kinase
  Structures Reveal New Pathways to NAD(). PLoS
  Biology 5e263 (2007)
• Min J, et al. L3MBTL1 recognition of mono- and
  dimethylated histones. Nat Struct Mol Biol.
  141229 (2007)

35
Where we must improve

• Outreach
• Edwards believed (perhaps incorrectly) that
  scientific accomplishments would be sufficient to
  raise the SGC profile
• Pharmaceutical funding
• Consortium needs to expand beyond its current
  funders
• 3. Enhancing impact of SGC science
• - gt1,500 purified proteins in house they have
  great scientific value

36
Priorities from 2007-2011

• Deposit 660 structures from the Target List (2400
  proteins)
• Deposit 8 human integral membrane proteins
• Focus science on three strategic areas
• Partner to generate selective probes for SGC
  targets (antibody and small molecule)
• Membrane protein structural biology
• Develop oncology program focused on the kinome
• Continue to promote the value of providing
  knowledge into the public domain unencumbered

37
Validating drug targets
38
Chemical biology

• The SGC has purified 1500 human proteins and
  deposited 500 structures
• The availability of proteins within families, and
  our screening capabilities, enables us to explore
  selectivity and specificity questions
• In most of our protein families, we are engaging
  in family-wide collaborations with two
  objectives
• - To produce maps of the interaction of the
  families with available chemistry (e.g. Federov
  et al Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 10420523 (2007)
• - To identify specific, selective and bioactive
  chemical probes of function (e.g. Pogacic et al,
  Cancer Res. 676916 (2007)

39
Pre-competitive chemical biology
40
Pre-competitive chemical biology

• Situation
• Drug discovery scientists stay away from many
  pioneer drug targets because of the high
  probability of failure in clinical trials (the
  lack of efficacy Grand Challenge)
• Aims
• Develop interest for these targets by generating
  chemical inhibitors for them (chemical probes)
  and providing them to academic and industrial
  scientists, unencumbered
• Scientific Plan
• Create partnership to develop quality chemical
  probes using biological expertise in academia and
  medicinal chemistry from industry
• Fund effort using both public and private
  resources
• Place chemical probes into the public domain,
  unencumbered
• Scientists will use probes to enhance knowledge
  about human biology

41
Model for pre-competitive chemistry
Industry
Public Domain
Public/Private Partnership
Chemical Probes Screening Chemistry Structure Bio
availability
Target Validation No IP No restrictions Publicati
on
Drug Discovery (re)Screening Chemistry Lead
optimization Pharmacology DMPK Toxicology Chemical
development Clinical development
Creative commons
Proprietary