Structural and Functional Analysis of the Caspase –dependent and –independent Domains of the X-linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein in Inflammatory Breast Cancer Tumor Biology

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an extremely rare but highly aggressive form of breast cancer characterized by the rapid development of therapeutic resistance leading to particularly poor survival. Our previous work focused on the elucidation of factors that mediate therapeutic resistance in IBC and identified increased expression of the anti-apoptotic protein, X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (XIAP), to correlate with the development of resistance to chemotherapeutics. Although XIAP is classically thought of as an inhibitor of caspase activation, multiple studies have revealed that XIAP can also function as a signaling intermediate in numerous pathways. Based on preliminary evidence revealing high expression of XIAP in pre-treatment IBC cells rather than only subsequent to the development of resistance, we hypothesized that XIAP could play an important signaling role in IBC pathobiology outside of its heavily published apoptotic inhibition function. Further, based on our discovery of inhibition of chemotherapeutic efficacy, we postulated that XIAP overexpression might also play a role in resistance to other forms of therapy, such as immunotherapy. Finally, we posited that targeting of specific redox adaptive mechanisms, which are observed to be a significant barrier to successful treatment of IBC, could overcome therapeutic resistance and enhance the efficacy of chemo-, radio-, and immuno- therapies. To address these hypotheses our objectives were: 1. to determine a role for XIAP in IBC pathobiology and to elucidate the upstream regulators and downstream effectors of XIAP; 2. to evaluate and describe a role for XIAP in the inhibition of immunotherapy; and 3. to develop and characterize novel redox modulatory strategies that target identified mechanisms to prevent or reverse therapeutic resistance.

Using various genomic and proteomic approaches, combined with analysis of cellular viability, proliferation, and growth parameters both in vitro and in vivo, we demonstrate that XIAP plays a central role in both IBC pathobiology in a manner mostly independent of its role as a caspase-binding protein. Modulation of XIAP expression in cells derived from patients prior to any therapeutic intervention significantly altered key aspects IBC biology including, but not limited to: IBC-specific gene signatures; the tumorigenic capacity of tumor cells; and the metastatic phenotype of IBC, all of which are revealed to functionally hinge on XIAP-mediated NFκB activation, a robust molecular determinant of IBC. Identification of the mechanism of XIAP-mediated NFκB activation led to the characterization of novel peptide-based antagonist which was further used to identify that increased NFκB activation was responsible for redox adaptation previously observed in therapy-resistant IBC cells. Lastly, we describe the targeting of this XIAP-NFκB-ROS axis using a novel redox modulatory strategy both in vitro and in vivo. Together, the data presented here characterize a novel and crucial role for XIAP both in therapeutic resistance and the pathobiology of IBC; these results confirm our previous work in acquired therapeutic resistance and establish the feasibility of targeting XIAP-NFκB and the redox adaptive phenotype of IBC as a means to enhance survival of patients.

The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: Is biotech different?

The costs of developing the types of new drugs that have been pursued by traditional pharmaceutical firms have been estimated in a number of studies. However, similar analyses have not been published on the costs of developing the types of molecules on which biotech firms have focused. This study represents a first attempt to get a sense for the magnitude of the R&D costs associated with the discovery and development of new therapeutic biopharmaceuticals (specifically, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]). We utilize drug-specific data on cash outlays, development times, and success in obtaining regulatory marketing approval to estimate the average pre-tax R&D resource cost for biopharmaceuticals up to the point of initial US marketing approval (in year 2005 dollars). We found average out-of-pocket (cash outlay) cost estimates per approved biopharmaceutical of $198 million, $361 million, and $559 million for the preclinical period, the clinical period, and in total, respectively. Including the time costs associated with biopharmaceutical R&D, we found average capitalized cost estimates per approved biopharmaceutical of $615 million, $626 million, and $1241 million for the preclinical period, the clinical period, and in total, respectively. Adjusting previously published estimates of R&D costs for traditional pharmaceutical firms by using past growth rates for pharmaceutical company costs to correspond to the more recent period to which our biopharmaceutical data apply, we found that total out-of-pocket cost per approved biopharmaceutical was somewhat lower than for the pharmaceutical company data ($559 million vs $672 million). However, estimated total capitalized cost per approved new molecule was nearly the same for biopharmaceuticals as for the adjusted pharmaceutical company data ($1241 million versus $1318 million). The results should be viewed with some caution for now given a limited number of biopharmaceutical molecules with data on cash outlays, different therapeutic class distributions for biopharmaceuticals and for pharmaceutical company drugs, and uncertainty about whether recent growth rates in pharmaceutical company costs are different from immediate past growth rates. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Returns to R&D on new drug introductions in the 1980s.

This study finds that the mean IRR for 1980-84 U.S. new drug introductions is 11.1%, and the mean NPV is 22 million (1990 dollars). The distribution of returns is highly skewed. The results are robust to plausible changes in the baseline assumptions. Our work is also compared with a 1993 study by the OTA. Despite some important differences in assumptions, both studies imply that returns for the average NCE are within one percentage point of the industry's cost of capital. This is much less than what is typically observed in analyses based on accounting data.

Where does energy R&D come from? Examining crowding out from energy R&D

Recent efforts to endogenize technological change in climate policy models demonstrate the importance of accounting for the opportunity cost of climate R&D investments. Because the social returns to R&D investments are typically higher than the social returns to other types of investment, any new climate mitigation R&D that comes at the expense of other R&D investment may dampen the overall gains from induced technological change. Unfortunately, there has been little empirical work to guide modelers as to the potential magnitude of such crowding out effects. This paper considers both the private and social opportunity costs of climate R&D. Addressing private costs, we ask whether an increase in climate R&D represents new R&D spending, or whether some (or all) of the additional climate R&D comes at the expense of other R&D. Addressing social costs, we use patent citations to compare the social value of alternative energy research to other types of R&D that may be crowded out. Beginning at the industry level, we find no evidence of crowding out across sectors-that is, increases in energy R&D do not draw R&D resources away from sectors that do not perform R&D. Given this, we proceed with a detailed look at alternative energy R&D. Linking patent data and financial data by firm, we ask whether an increase in alternative energy patents leads to a decrease in other types of patenting activity. While we find that increases in alternative energy patents do result in fewer patents of other types, the evidence suggests that this is due to profit-maximizing changes in research effort, rather than financial constraints that limit the total amount of R&D possible. Finally, we use patent citation data to compare the social value of alternative energy patents to other patents by these firms. Alternative energy patents are cited more frequently, and by a wider range of other technologies, than other patents by these firms, suggesting that their social value is higher. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.

R&D Costs and Returns to New Drug Development: A Review of the Evidence

© 2012 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.This article reviews the extensive literature on R&D costs and returns. The first section focuses on R&D costs and the various factors that have affected the trends in real R&D costs over time. The second section considers economic studies on the distribution of returns in pharmaceuticals for different cohorts of new drug introductions. It also reviews the use of these studies to analyze the impact of policy actions on R&D costs and returns. The final section concludes and discusses open questions for further research.

R Markdown: Integrating A Reproducible Analysis Tool into Introductory Statistics

Nolan and Temple Lang argue that “the ability to express statistical computations is an es- sential skill.” A key related capacity is the ability to conduct and present data analysis in a way that another person can understand and replicate. The copy-and-paste workflow that is an artifact of antiquated user-interface design makes reproducibility of statistical analysis more difficult, especially as data become increasingly complex and statistical methods become increasingly sophisticated. R Markdown is a new technology that makes creating fully-reproducible statistical analysis simple and painless. It provides a solution suitable not only for cutting edge research, but also for use in an introductory statistics course. We present experiential and statistical evidence that R Markdown can be used effectively in introductory statistics courses, and discuss its role in the rapidly-changing world of statistical computation.