Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | jforman's comments login

15 interesting slides is a few standard deviations higher than what I normally find interesting in a talk

-----


Moving to SoMa won't do it, but if you have a successful exit and a personal relationship with ballsy VCs you have a shot:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/02/an-ex-googler-is-launching-...

-----


Sounds like this is roughly based on the Microsoft/Facebook deal. MSFT invested $240M at $15B valuation but won the right to be the ad platform for FB globally for some period of time.

Not the same as forcing the investee into ad spend, but that's what it conjured up in my mind when I read it.

-----


You sure about that? They're doing better than Rackspace and Google:

http://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RightScal...

-----


The major law firms all benchmark law school graduate salaries against each other. When one firm deviates it's a huge to-do.

-----


Isn't that called collusion?

-----


Yes, but who are you going to get to prosecute it?

-----


The lawyers who can't get jobs at the Big Law firms?

-----


From nabraham's post [0], it seems that this is actually the result of completely transparent salary information. The firms are all in lockstep because they can all see what each other are paying and adjust to the same number. I'm not sure collusion really applies to that type of scenario, especially when the net result seems to be that employees get paid more, not less. (A raise in salaries at one firm will cause an equivalent raise in others, because they're afraid of missing out on talent.)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9448562

-----


Intern salaries at all big companies hover around 7K-8K/month or so., milk cost around $4/gallon and so on. You do not need collusion to come to the same price.

-----


When I moved from SF to Boston (after co-founding Inkling six years ago), the top two things I was worried about are a) a less pro-startup culture, and b) less available early-stage money.

This really doesn't help either point. We need more early-stage money here and more optimism, not less.

-----


Understandable. The seed environment in Boston is sub-optimal. But hopefully it will continue to change as more people like me band together with friends to start seed stage VC firms. The market is just too good to not take advantage while there's no competition and no crazy valuations.

-----


It is not a folder. Once I realized this I uninstalled. I don't want to redownload files every time I need to work on them.

-----


It seems I want the opposite. I don't want to have the files on my local machine. I want storage that is bigger than what my local machine has. Hopefully at least one of us will get what we want from this.

-----


"Zhang--who maintains he did the work independently"

So he has a wet lab at home? color me skeptical.

But I suppose you might as well do what you can to get a slice of a multi-billion dollar pie.

-----


He doesn't mean independently from the university he works at, he means independently from the other researchers who also discovered the technology.

-----


Either way the university owns the IP regardless of who the "inventor" on the patent is, so why is this relevant?

-----


Because universities commonly provide exclusive out-licensing for the patents they own? The inventor here started his own company based on the work the university owns.

-----


- What's your approach on how to eventually apply the process to cells that don't normally grow in suspension?

- How do you guard against harmful drug interactions in vivo, given that most of these drug combinations probably haven't been seen in a person at the same time? Does this fall under compassionate use?

- Are you sequencing tumors and looking for predictive markers for future applications?

Wonderful project and best of luck.

-----


- This is one of the reasons we have started with Glioblastoma Multiforme (grade 4 brain cancer), as it has been grown in serum free suspension cultures (the neurosphere assay) by many labs for the past decade or so. When we eventually look to move into other cancers we will need to re-engineer the process.

-Since all of the drugs are FDA approved we don't have to apply to get compassionate use as you would if you were obtaining an experimental therapy outside of a clinical trial. The approved drugs can be used at a doctor's discretion as an off label prescription within our current system. As for safety please see my response to the first comment.

-Yes we are going to be sequencing all of our tumors. The difference between our approach to this versus existing personalized medicine sequencing is that we're more interested in using biomarkers in the future once we've identified a patient population that responds to a certain drug combination.

This is our long-term goal, to use a patient's biomarkers to predict drug response that we can then validate in vitro and in vivo rather than just relying on empirically physically testing drugs on a patient's cells.

-----


> Are you sequencing tumors and looking for predictive markers for future applications?

For anyone interested in predictive cancer biomarkers, here are some good (open access) reviews of some of the challenges in creating them:

* http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/156

* http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/72/23/6097.long

* http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/87

There's also a good Institute of Medicine report on the Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward (free PDF): http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13297/evolution-of-translational-...

-----


This is a really great point srunni thank you for bringing it up. We agree that the current approach to identifying predictive cancer biomarkers has many challenges. That's why we believe in a different approach.

Glioblastoma was actually the first tumor profiled for the Cancer Genome Atlas Project. http://cancergenome.nih.gov/cancersselected/glioblastomamult...

There have been four subtypes found in the disease, but all four are still treated ineffectively with the same standard of care chemotherapy (Temozolomide). To date none of these predictive biomarkers have led to a successful targeted therapy.

This was a personal frustration for me, as I had my dad's tumor sequenced for genetic mutations, but there were no targeted therapies that reach the brain in high enough concentrations to be effective.

This is an important distinction in personalized medicine specific to brain cancer, as many drugs do not cross the blood brain barrier. For example the most prevalent mutation in Glioblastoma is a mutation in the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) pathway. This is also a driver mutation in lung cancer that has approved targeted therapies like Afatinib.

Unfortunately none of these drugs have worked in trials for brain cancer, in large part because they do not cross the blood brain barrier well. For example here is a study recently published on the poor results with Afatinib in brain tumor patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25140039

There are currently very few targeted therapies in development for brain cancer as it is a small disease for pharma companies to market drugs.

This is why our approach is to correlate tumor response to existing therapies with empirically identified biomarkers. In contrast using tumors alone to predict cancer biomarkers is challenging because it requires a hypothesis or target to be tested one at a time with a novel therapy in a trial.

For underserved diseases like glioblastoma, this could result in many years passing by as each hypothesis driven therapy fails in clinical trials.

-----


stupid question, is there no way to administer drugs directly where they are needed ?

-----


Definitely not a stupid question it is really important!

There are several novel ways to deliver drugs to tumors in the brain in trials. Some use specially designed pumps, nanotechnology, and intra-arterial delivery (where a catheter is snaked to the tumor through blood vessels).

The problem is that all of these methods are experimental so they can't be used in combination. We're very hopeful that they are successful though!

-----


Anybody can file any kind of lawsuit. If you can't demonstrate harm to the person filing (with a few exceptions) that lawsuit will be tossed right out, though.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: