IBJNews

Lilly collaboration with outside researchers yields first deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. has struck its first deal under an open-collaboration program launched last year to evaluate the potential of compounds synthesized in university and biotech labs.

After receiving data on more than 30,000 compounds from researchers in 26 countries, the first collaborative agreement was reached in its own back yard, with University of Notre Dame researchers Marvin Miller and Garrett Moraski.

They‘ll work with Lilly scientists for at least the next year to discover the potential of the Notre Dame compounds to starve the blood flow to tumors.

While there’s nothing new about collaborations with outside researchers, Lilly’s Phenotypic Drug Discovery Initiative, or PD2, is to provide a more convenient entry point for outside researchers into Lilly’s drug-discovery and -development process.

It allows the drugmaker to establish relationships with outside scientists that may not have worked with Lilly before. The ultimate goal is finding a promising compound, which an outside researcher might otherwise leave on the shelf, and turn it into the next blockbuster drug.

PD2 consists of a secure Web portal that researchers use to submit the structure of their compounds for an initial computational analysis by Lilly. If it shows promise, a researcher is invited to submit a biological sample for testing.

The outside researchers receive more extensive data on the compound’s biological profile than what generally is possible in academic or government labs, Lilly says.

In return, Lilly gets first rights to exclusively negotiate a collaboration or licensing agreement.

“This is the first of many” collaborations to be formalized in the months ahead, said Alan Palkowitz, vice president of discovery chemistry research and technologies at Lilly.

Lilly has about 70 of its own compounds in the pipeline at its labs worldwide. As research and development costs have risen, Lilly and its competitors have been forging alliances with outside companies—licensing their technologies or outright buying the firms.

The PD2 program’s approach is believed to be unique among big drug companies. About two-thirds of interest in PD2 so far has come from university researchers.

Traditionally, a pharmaceutical company might buy technology from a university lab and the relationship might end then and there, Notre Dame’s Miller said.

He says Lilly’s approach goes beyond a financial transaction in that his team has received valuable data from Lilly – 90-some pages from the analysis of Notre Dame’s compound that originally was synthesized to treat tuberculosis.

“The intricacy of the data was really rich from a researcher’s point of view,” said Miller’s colleague, Moraski.

Such data can be used as part of further research and can improve the odds of a researcher's landing a federal grant, as well.

“Our upfront transaction currency is not money. It’s actually data,” said Lilly’s Palkowitz.

The Notre Dame researchers will work directly with Lilly scientists for the at least the next year, something Moraski, who is passionate about finding ways to combat cancer, finds rewarding as well.

Such collaborations help Lilly leverage the expensive investment it has made over the years in its assay system to evaluate compounds to treat Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis.

One of Lilly’s best-known products, the cancer drug Alimta, stemmed from a collaboration with Princeton University researcher Edward C. Taylor. The drug rang up sales of more than $2 billion last year.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT