A blast from genome editing's past

The advent of CRISPR led labs around the world to cast aside an earlier and buggier generation of genome-editing technologies in favor of the shiny new thing. But one of those older tools might enable genetic surgeries that are either more complex or safer than what CRISPR can do, and a new biotech startup intends to find out.

As STAT's Jason Mast reports, Seamless Therapeutics has raised millions in seed funding to tease out the promise of recombinases, DNA-manipulating enzymes that can be used to insert large sequences of genetic code into the genome.

The technology, led by German molecular biologist Frank Buchholz, has taken years of labor to fine-tune and prepare for human testing. And while there's a lot of labor ahead, Seamless is among a crop of companies looking to recombinases to overcome CRISPR's limitations.

Read more.

M&A

A penny-stock biotech bidding war

Jounce Therapeutics, a cancer-focused company that went public at $16 a share in 2017, has seen its fortunes run aground in recent years and has spent much of the last six months trading below the $1 threshold. But Jounce still has its Nasdaq listing, and, with IPOs few and far between in 2023, that's apparently enough to spark a bidding war.

Back in February, Jounce signed an agreement to merge with the London-listed Redx Pharma in an all-stock transaction, which would give Redx a spot on the Nasdaq and promise Jounce shareholders 80% of the proceeds from any future deal involving the company's remaining pipeline. But then, yesterday, a privately held firm called Concentra Biosciences stepped in with a sweeter offer: $1.80 per share in cash, representing a more than 80% premium to Jounce's prior value, and the same promise of royalties from pipeline deals. Jounce's share price, which rose about 40% on the news, suggests shareholders are leaning toward Option B.

In one sense, the Jounce situation is a downbeat referendum on just how far the industry has fallen in the eyes of the financial markets, which were once eager to underwrite even the most speculative of biotech IPOs. But in another, it's a heartening sign for the many publicly traded biotech companies barely staying afloat. Even in the worst-case scenario, you can always auction off that Nasdaq listing.

Financials

SVB's clients aren't out of the woods yet

While a federal intervention averted disaster for the many tech and biotech companies with deposits in Silicon Valley Bank, many are now left in financial limbo thanks to the terms of their loans.

As Bloomberg reports, SVB's prodigious lending to high-risk startups came with a catch: Many of those loans required the borrower to keep some or all of its cash deposited with the bank. After last week's bank run, scores of companies were understandably eager to pull their funds out of SVB, but some face the risk of defaulting on loans by doing so.

Then there's the problem of SVB's future ownership. Authorities are still trying to find a buyer for the company, and it might end up getting sold off in pieces, with different buyers for its banking, venture capital, and financial services divisions. That leaves borrowers with added uncertainty: Who wants to buy a loan book laden with companies that don't make any money and, by probability, never will?

R&D

New GSK is newly uninterested in cancer

The global pharmaceutical company formerly known as GlaxoSmithKline was deep into a years-long effort to restore investor confidence when its big-name chief scientist, Hal Barron, left for a billionaire-funded longevity company. Now the self-described New GSK is soldiering on — and moving away from Barron's plan to compete in the lucrative market for new cancer therapies.

In an interview with Reuters, Tony Wood, who succeeded Barron in August, said GSK would maintain its commitment to research backed up by human genetics, but while "Hal talked a lot about oncology, I'll talk less about it." Instead, GSK will focus on medicines for infectious disease, like its up-for-approval RSV vaccine, and HIV.

Meanwhile, GSK has lost about 30% of its value since 2020 as CEO Emma Walmsley has combatted criticism from flustered shareholders and insisted that the latest incarnation of the company, now shorn of its consumer division, can return to growth.

More around STAT