Myc on Myc off, page-2

'A Myc inhibitor is a key target in immuno-oncology.'

Is that a statement or a question? It would appear to be a statement which is in one way surprising because there are no drugs for Myc. Dr Jay Bradner said in a radio interview on mPatient Myeloma Radio on August 30, 2014, that if Myc is so important for established cancers could targeting Myc prevent cancers from happening at all? Bradner goes on to say that so far, there is not one drug that can bind to and impair the function of the Myc gene.

We have a drug target that could potentially prevent cancers from happening at all but no drug. Its interesting to note that Phylogica in its latest presentation, in talking about iMyc outperforming Omomyc, uses the expression 'first generation iMyc phylomers'.

Phylogica is very well aware that a Myc inhibitor is a key IO target. In the slide from the Biotech Showcase in January 2017, FPP-Omomyc decreases PD-L1 (Myc target gene) there is a dot point - "potential immuno-oncology implications". Its important because it changes the approach to drug development as well fuelling investor and Big Pharma excitement. By example, a Myc inhibitor could be complemented by other IO therapies. In terms of drug development synergy would be an important consideration - low toxicity would be critical.

If you were serious about the the potential for IO you might even appoint people to your Scientific Advisory Board who were experts in the field. I'm impressed that Professor Judy Liebermann's lab also studies cytotoxic T lymphocytes - I think that got something to do with IO.

The illustration that Bradner uses in describing Myc is that of a faucet. Downstream of Myc, we are trying to kill cancer cells but the faucet is left on - the cancer cure will involve turning off the faucet. Are we there yet! First or second generation Myc inhibitors, after 40 years we can afford to wait.