Intrexon In-trouble?

Ever used Google Alerts? They're a great way to keep tabs on interesting companies without the press appeal of, say, Apple or Pfizer. One such company that I follow is Intrexon - a company that aims to be to synthetic biology what Microsoft or Google are to software or the internet - broad, dominant, and in certain regards the 800-pound gorilla of the sector.

Usually my Intrexon alerts are full of Halozyme and Ziopharm references - they're small-cap partners of Intrexon and never shy about touting their connection to Intrexon and RJ Kirk. This weeks' alert, though, linked to a message board post from an Intrexon employee who's position was being eliminated in a bad way. Not a huge deal, but it did prompt me to check the Intrexon management page and some LinkedIn connections. Turns out  there's been leadership turnover and layoffs at the extremely well funded company. At least two long-term leaders at the company have been booted (COO who was formerly CEO, and the head of the AgBio division), and the number of open positions on their career page has been reduced to a trickle.

Intrexon is highly secretive, so what has happened will probably never reach the press. I'll guess, though, that somebody realized that a time-out was necessary since 1) the company probably has/had a seven-digit monthly burn rate, while intentionally foregoing revenues, and that 2) the company's core technology is over a decade old. Other guesses might be that an expected partnership didn't materialize, or, possibly the Prometheus, Myriad, and other legal cases prompted doubt over whether Intrexon's synthetic biology IP strategy was defensible.

One other possibility: the realization has taken hold that synthetic biology is just a new name for cool(er) genetic engineering, and that a category-killer company in this segment just isn't in demand.

DNA, RNA, and….XNA?

A UK team synthesized DNA-like and RNA-like chemicals with similar properties, though using never seen-before chemistry to act as the structure for the nucleobase genetic information. (In other words, traditional A's, G's, T's. and C's, but novel structures in place of the ribose or deoxyribose sugar scaffolding. Good scientific over views can be found here or here.)

The resulting molecules are referred to as XNA - xeno nucleic acids. The implications of XNAs are profound, and I'm not even counting the conclusion that it now seems that life need not be based on DNA or RNA. (I can't wait to see how the evolutionists and creationists spin this news.)

The UK team's research represents the dawn of a new research modality or at least a re-definition of the science of biochemistry. XNAs could be a new source of therapeutic compounds or a source of new biomaterials. XNAs could be a key component of quantum computing (it would seem that XNAs could represent organic memory storage).

My first thought, as I contemplate how to explain the significance of XNAs to a non-bio-geek, is to suggest a mainstream analogy: DNA & RNA are traditional operating systems that we have grown up with and almost mastered, like Linux or Windows. The development of XNA is like the establishment of a different but ubiquitous operating system like Java. Like Java, XNA could enable exciting new applications in a breadth of industries or operating systems.

I think XNAs will kickstart a wave of interest in chemistry and synthetic biology research, not just in traditional biochemistry groups, but probably as far afield as NASA (XNAs as an analog for extraterrestrial life?) and Dow Chemical (why synthesize a chemical when you can express it?)

A couple of questions to chew over as a result:

1) while XNAs represent a change in the basics of life's chemistry, is an improvement possible, or has evolutionary biology optimized our chemistry?

2) what does this mean for large synthetic biology ventures like Intrexon? Their existing IP likely just became less relevant (or valuable), but their core capabilities are now more relevant. (I'm probably getting ahead of things - the XNA technology is still a long way from commercialization.)

3) what groups will be the first to incorporate XNA in their grant proposals? Will it be drug discovery groups, who would consider XNA another lead class on the order of siRNA or aptamers or will it be chemical engineers?

4) what can be down to mitigate the inevitable new, larger, louder round of synthetic biology fear-mongering among bioethicists and bio-Luddites, as XNAs could possibly do very bad things - intentionally or unintentionally.


Of course, XNA was not the biggest scientific advance this week. That prize goes to the research team who discovered the cause of brain freeze. I wonder if the research was underwritten by Slupree Corp.

biotech as fantasy baseball

Luke TImmerman @ Xconomy compares bio-pharma to fantasy baseball in an interesting way. Since baseball DOES explain life (and vice versa), here's a few more bio-baseball analogies:

Bryce Harper = Intrexon. Harper - an outfield prospect for the Washington Nats - is arguably the game's greatest prospect, though it has cost a huge amount of money to sign and develop Harper to this point. Likewise, Intrexon, with great prospects in synthetic biology, has required a huge amount of capital investment to date. Both Harper and Intrexon are anticipated to be very productive, but neither is assured of being a net positive.

C.C. Sabathia = Genentech. Sabathia in Cleveland and Genentech on their own had prodigous success, but both have joined much larger 'empires' in the last few years in the form of the NY Yankees and Roche, respectively. Both Sabathia and Genentech have carried on their success in their new uniforms.

Jamie Moyer = GPCR research. Ancient by current standards, both Moyer (49 years old, and new starting pitcher for the Colorado Rockies) and GPCR research keep delivering.

A-Rod = Pfizer. Both are cash-rich giants of their respective industries, and based in NYC, but both have delivered only marginal results over the last few years, perhaps getting by on reputation.

David Freese = Biogen. Both are known for two big hits in particular (Freese in the 2011 World Series, Biogen with Tysrabi and Rituxan). Both really need to deliver in 2012 in order to stay in the big leagues.

Andrew Friedman = _________ (position open.) Friedman, the creative and successful General Manager of the resource-poor Tampa Bay Rays has through innovation and smart deals made Tampa competitive with teams with payrolls twice their size. Bio-pharma badly needs a few Andrew Friedmans to adopt innovative business models and generate R&D success far beyond what a meager budget might suggest.

Average college baseball player = average RX or DX IP from an academic center. Both are really, really, really far from major league success. The only difference is that the college ballplayer knows it.