Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group
priorwalter

Excision Bio updated website info

Recommended Posts

priorwalter

Looks like Excision Biotherapeutics revamped their website in the last few days. On the pipeline page it's now estimated that their HSV1 and HSV2 phase 1 trials will begin in 2021. Also, though I'm not sure what metrics they're basing this on, they've listed preclinical efficacy of their treatments showing their HSV1 trials have been more effective than HSV2. Anyone been able to successfully contact Excision about their research? 

 

https://excisionbio.com/pipeline/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brookeb300

Wow that kind of sucks at least they r still working on it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
1 hour ago, priorwalter said:

Looks like Excision Biotherapeutics revamped their website in the last few days. On the pipeline page it's now estimated that their HSV1 and HSV2 phase 1 trials will begin in 2021. Also, though I'm not sure what metrics they're basing this on, they've listed preclinical efficacy of their treatments showing their HSV1 trials have been more effective than HSV2. Anyone been able to successfully contact Excision about their research? 

 

https://excisionbio.com/pipeline/

Where are the results regarding hsv1 and 2 that you speak of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
priorwalter
10 minutes ago, Cas9 said:

Where are the results regarding hsv1 and 2 that you speak of?

Check the link I shared. On that page you'll see a chart with one of the columns being "preclinical efficacy." It's kind of frustratingly uninformative but it has bars of different sizes indicating efficacy. HSV1 is farther along than HSV2, and they both appear to be less effective than the company's HIV therapy. Though they haven't provided any data to explain these results. Pretty unsurprising, since I'm sure they'd want to be as guarded as possible with their studies until they're more advanced. Again that's why I'd like to know if anyone has heard anything directly from the company about their trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moialbalushi
43 minutes ago, priorwalter said:

Check the link I shared. On that page you'll see a chart with one of the columns being "preclinical efficacy." It's kind of frustratingly uninformative but it has bars of different sizes indicating efficacy. HSV1 is farther along than HSV2, and they both appear to be less effective than the company's HIV therapy. Though they haven't provided any data to explain these results. Pretty unsurprising, since I'm sure they'd want to be as guarded as possible with their studies until they're more advanced. Again that's why I'd like to know if anyone has heard anything directly from the company about their trials.

I think they are different becuz they are using different tools. (CasY and SaCas9). No ? @Cas9 whay do think ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
37 minutes ago, moialbalushi said:

I think they are different becuz they are using different tools. (CasY and SaCas9). No ? @Cas9 whay do think ? 

No, that wouldn't be the issue; Efficacy is efficacy no matter what approach/tool you use. Besides, HIV is using the same tool as hsv1 and you can see that the efficacy is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimmyjimmyhuapua

 I think crispr wont eliminate virus from the body.. they postponed their planned timeline... For us the best thing will be a vaccine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moialbalushi
1 hour ago, Cas9 said:

No, that wouldn't be the issue; Efficacy is efficacy no matter what approach/tool you use. Besides, HIV is using the same tool as hsv1 and you can see that the efficacy is different.

But if we used SaCas 9 on hsv-2. Wouldnt be the efficiacy different ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
4 hours ago, moialbalushi said:

But if we used SaCas 9 on hsv-2. Wouldnt be the efficiacy different ? 

It probably would be different, but my guess would be that it would be less effective since the research team thought it best to use CasY for hsv2.
That said, I don't think it's the issue. I think the issue may simply be that the gene targets of the viral dna (i.e.the genes they want to remove from the virus), are not totally effective in stopping viral replication. That's my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
priorwalter
4 hours ago, moialbalushi said:

But if we used SaCas 9 on hsv-2. Wouldnt be the efficiacy different ? 

I'm sure if this were a viable option the researchers would be pursuing it instead. They're not making these choices arbitrarily. 

My concern at this point would be whether broader crispr research will develop as these studies are moving along that invalidate the work they've already done. Like the recent study saying Cas12a might be a better gene editor than Cas9. This is what's tricky about watching this all unfold from the very outset of the technology. Researchers are pursuing studies based on the initial, and likely most primitive form, of the technology that will probably improve from here with time. Then what becomes of current trials? Will we get to a point where trials will just be started over again at the beginning based on new advancements? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35hope
11 minutes ago, Cas9 said:

It probably would be different, but my guess would be that it would be less effective since the research team thought it best to use CasY for hsv2.
That said, I don't think it's the issue. I think the issue may simply be that the gene targets of the viral dna (i.e.the genes they want to remove from the virus), are not totally effective in stopping viral replication. That's my guess.

what i was thinking from therapies that target the the active dna and not latent, when the latent virus wakes and produces the active virus then crispr deactivates it where does the deactivated dna go? overtime wouldn't the cell get crowded with the deactivated dna which might cause it to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atrapasueños

no hay ningún estudio en animales, me sorprende que la empresa tenga el hsv como uno de los principales candidatos de su cartelera terapéutica, el otro de los artículos de que crisper generaba las mutaciones inesperadas y el problema de que podría generar cáncer que que retrasaran los ensayos, también está hecho de la compañía se está centrando en el vih como opción a curar, pero por lo menos hay una empresa que está trabajando en el hsv, lo que me sorprende es que el Dr. Keith jerome no tardó tanto tiempo enganchar los resultados sobre el hsv en un animal (mouse) y lo que llama la atención que habla de curar muchos virus de su cartelera pero sobre el hsv sólo dicen que la replicación

_____

no animal trial has been published, I am surprised that the company has the hsv as one of its main candidates for its therapeutic billboard, apart from the articles that Crispr generated unexpected mutations and the problem that could cause cancer caused them to delay the rehearsals, there is also the fact that the company is focusing on hiv as an option to cure, but at least there is a company that is working on the hsv, what surprises me is that Dr. keith jerome did not take so long in publishing their results on the hsv in an animal (mouse) and what catches my attention is that they talk about curing many viruses on their billboard but on the hsv they only say that they prevent replication

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35hope
33 minutes ago, Atrapasueños said:

there is no study on animals, I am surprised that the company has the hsv as one of the main candidates of its therapeutic billboard, the other one of the articles that crisper generated the unexpected mutations and the problem that could generate cancer that delayed the rehearsals, it is also made the company is focusing on hiv as an option to cure, but at least there is a company that is working on the hsv , what surprises me is that Dr. Keith Jerome did not take long to hook the results on the hsv in an animal (mouse) and what calls the attention that talks about curing many viruses of its billboard but on the hsv they only say that the replication

_____

no animal trial has been published, I am surprised that the company has the hsv as one of its main candidates for its therapeutic billboard, apart from the articles that Crispr generated unexpected mutations and the problem that could cause cancer caused them to delay the rehearsals, there is also the fact that the company is focusing on hiv as an option to cure, but at least there is a company that is working on the hsv, what surprises me is that Dr. keith jerome did not take so long in publishing their results on the hsv in an animal (mouse) and what catches my attention is that they talk about curing many viruses on their billboard but on the hsv they only say that they prevent replication

they've done in vivo testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
friendlyboy
12 hours ago, priorwalter said:

Also, though I'm not sure what metrics they're basing this on, they've listed preclinical efficacy of their treatments showing their HSV1 trials have been more effective than HSV2.

LOL

Those bars don't say anything about effectivenes. They are an indicator about how far they have gotten in the preclinical efficacy studies stage.

Edited by friendlyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vzhe
1 minute ago, friendlyboy said:

LOL

Those bars don't say anything about effectivenes. They are an indicator about how far have they gotten in the preclinical efficacy studies stage.

bad UI design. but I agree. they probably consider HSV-1 and HSV-2 comparable enough and will do each with a different CAS to see what works better.. and then likely do another study with whichever wins the comparison...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hopeful22

I was going to post something about this but I figure this should help people understand before this thread goes haywire. 

CAS12A remember cas12a 

Instead of CRISPR cas9 crispr cas12a is a more precise and deemed more safe. 

In the past couple weeks CRISPR has had a lot of bad publicity over new research, but last week it was discovered that another enzyme CAS12A is very precise and safe. 

I am guessing that Excisionbio is going to switch gears and start using CAS12A instead of cas9

please see the article published last week. 

https://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/crispr-cas12a-more-precise-than-crispr-cas9/81256099

Edited by hopeful22
spellcheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
infoguy123

@hopeful22

Sorry, just to save me a bunch of reading and possibly getting nowhere..and I'm not sure I'm asking correctly..

Is cas12a in the casY category?  Is there some list showing each useful enzyme and which category it's in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moialbalushi
1 hour ago, vzhe said:

bad UI design. but I agree. they probably consider HSV-1 and HSV-2 comparable enough and will do each with a different CAS to see what works better.. and then likely do another study with whichever wins the comparison...

That is what I thought too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
8 hours ago, friendlyboy said:

LOL

Those bars don't say anything about effectivenes. They are an indicator about how far they have gotten in the preclinical efficacy studies stage.

I considered that also but the progress arrow for a pipeline is not typically done that way. But I think you are correct; it's simply how far along they are with the process.

Edited by Cas9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atrapasueños

@35hope only keith jerome has done a study with mice proving that he managed to stop the replication of hsv in neurons but it was only 2% to 4%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hopeful22
12 hours ago, infoguy123 said:

@hopeful22

Sorry, just to save me a bunch of reading and possibly getting nowhere..and I'm not sure I'm asking correctly..

Is cas12a in the casY category?  Is there some list showing each useful enzyme and which category it's in?

@infoguy123

i honestly don't know. I will look into it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
6 hours ago, Atrapasueños said:

@35hope only keith jerome has done a study with mice proving that he managed to stop the replication of hsv in neurons but it was only 2% to 4%

Proving what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35hope
9 hours ago, Atrapasueños said:

@35hope only keith jerome has done a study with mice proving that he managed to stop the replication of hsv in neurons but it was only 2% to 4%

that was for the latent virus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
9 hours ago, 35hope said:

that was for the latent virus

Exactly.   And that was my point when I asked Atrapasuenos what the Jerome experiments proved. He was trying to make it look like the work performed by Jerome Labs was unsuccessful thus proving that the same would apply to Excision Bio.  Not true!
Excision Bio's approach is different than Jerome Labs in that it doesn't deal directly with the latent virus, which in turn means that from Excision Bio, we can expect a functional cure at best, not a sterilizing cure.

Furthermore, even if Excision Bio was going after the latent virus like Jerome Labs, that doesn't mean that they wont have more success than Jerome Labs.

Of course Atrapasueno's response to my question is meant to sidestep the intent of his initial comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • The Hive is Thriving!

    • Total Topics
      69,304
    • Total Posts
      466,290
  • Posts

    • jmherped
      Quest, what is your protocol exactly for taking out a breakout in 24 to 48 hours?
    • jeraldpeabody
      @MikeHerp totally agree and understand! so i would say the first port of call is to somehow bring all these different voices together and work out a good way to collaborate. I've contacted some of the people on instagram / youtube that have fairly big followers but I have yet to hear back from them. I might try another tactic!  What are you thoughts on trying to have a central point of information / communication for the movement ? is it worth setting up a discord / slack kinda messaging app ? for example i can't use this forum on my phone at all, I have to be at my lappy to use it. I also appreciate what Rich does, but he has very few followers on social if you compare him to alot of the female voices on there. LaureenHD is prob the biggest herpes advocate I can find out there with a large following. I'll reach out to her again.. 
    • jmherped
      Does anybody know what an extreme dive in the chamber like the one the diver who was cured would do to a person?  Is it painful/dangerous, or do you just go in and out like nothing happened? 
    • jmherped
      This looks very promising...  I'm in Cabo and they have one of these for divers at the hospital.  I'm going to check into the cost.  John146, are you still using your home machine? 
    • MikeHerp
      Right.  I agree that goals are important. 1.  I want to continue to raise money for FHC.  I don't think it has to be that far off as you mentioned, though, as you noted, it still needs a bit of time.  I have a feeling we'll be surprised how quickly progress is made, and the FDA does not seem intent on slowing the progress this time.  Further, once human trials actually start and this stuff starts to show it's quite effective, I think things will become a bit more optimistic for the rest of us even if completing the trials still takes some time.  That's how I see it.  Of course, it's possible that it all fails, it hits huge roadblocks etc. There is that risk.  But I believe this gene editing stuff is here to stay.  Every serious analysis of futuristic technologies I've reviewed, seems to think so as well.  Also, the more important thing is what I wrote at the bottom in boldface--we can make things happen, we can change or at least bend the reality if we try.  In my view, that's more important than how far away something might seem. We've had several veterans here chime in, like @Cas9 who are older, who have dealt with this for decades even, and they aren't even sure whether they will be around when a cure or partial cure gets rolled out (I think Cas9 will get it in his life though), but they still urge us not to give up hope, that there's more momentum now than there used to be.  That's more important than the notion that something might still take some time.   2.  We can get behind other research efforts / trials.  As somebody else mentioned, once pritelivir completes its phase 2, we can begin writing to the FDA to have it approved, to allow it to be tested in not immunocompromised patients.  That kind of grass roots movement will be easier if it is concentrated, coordinated. 3.  We may consider looking at other fund raisers.  Other things may emerge and there are people who are working on herpes stuff (like Doctor Iwasaki) who need money.  But at this time. I don't want to get side tracked.  Ive also been carefully watching Rich Mancuso's efforts regarding theravax.  My only issue with it is that his petitions are asking the FDA to fast track Therevax. But the vaccine hasn't even been submitted to the FDA for testing, so it doesn't seem like it makes much sense to petition the FDA to fast rack it now.  As far as I know, the FDA can't fast-track something that hasn't even entered the process.  But, Thiel has invested close to $10 million in it, and if it does get into human trials, we could consider joining forces with Rich to highlight that and maybe write appropriate letters to the FDA.   4.  As you mentioned, raising awareness. Across various platforms and across various geographical regions.   Hopefully also converting more people to our cause.  For example, @hsv2fighter mentioned to me that he is trying to put together an association of Chinese HSV patients.  I imagine there must be millions.  And with ppl in China being increasingly connected to the internet, I think there could be many with whom we can unite. Likewise, that kind of channel could give us a better view on what they are doing in China with gene editing etc.   5.  As you mentioned, unifying people to show how large and important the movement is, and the need for more funding and research etc. 6.  I believe relevant additional goals will emerge on which we can act, and if we have unified, it will be easier to act.  Most of the time, even if somebody has some good idea to do something, not a lot can be done because people aren't coordinated.  Somebody creates a petition, and maybe 5 people sign it.  Look, the whole FHC fund raiser didn't exist 2 months ago, but came into existence because I reached out to FHC and they were responsive to and supportive of the idea.  So that was good.  But that alone might not have accomplished much if the good folks at Honeycomb, hadn't not only pinned the post about the fund raiser, but also given it their informal seal of approval.  And now, because of all that, we've raised over $10k, and that's only based on mainly small donations in a few weeks from our community.  We haven't even really targeted any deep pockets (we've barely tried) or done a lot to sell the case, rather, we've mainly just donated ourselves. All that stuff happened because people worked together.   The point is that, we can make things happen, bigger things, if we try.  That's what I'd like to focus on more than the idea that something might be far away or it's hard to do something.   Anyway, thanks for your efforts.  This stuff is easier when others are also contributing and you are helping a lot.        
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.