The Catalytic Antibody Work of Covalent Biosciences is Headed for the Public Domain

Navigating a pharma or biotech startup company from preclinical proof of concept of some new and potentially useful technology to the stage of running clinical trials is hard at the best of times. To a first approximation, institutional investors, those with deep enough pockets to fund the enormous regulatory costs imposed upon drug manufacture and clinical trials, do not fund new directions, new mechanisms, truly novel therapies. We can debate whether those at fault are more the venture capitalists who run the funds or the limited partners who hold the purse strings, but the end result is a strong aversion to any risk that is not well understood - such as the prospects for any new class of therapy. Investors like small tweaks on proven existing drugs, which is how we end up with overinvestment in strategies for lowering LDL cholesterol, despite the fact that none of these drugs is capable even in principle of reliably reversing cardiovascular disease.

On top of that, most of the last decade has been a decided gloomy market environment for drug development. Good technologies have fallen to the wayside. The latest to succumb is Covalent Biosciences, developer of catalytic antibodies. They are shutting down, preparing some scientific publications to explain the aspects of their platform and research not already published, and in a few years their patents will expire. Catalytic antibodies are in principle vastly more effective than normal antibodies, as the catalytic antibody can interact with countless target molecules rather than just one. The Covalent Biosciences team sought to apply this technology to transthyretin amyloidosis and Alzheimer's disease, among other targets.

If we want to speculate as to the reasons why Covalent Biosciences failed to attract the necessary funding to run clinical trials, one might think that it was because they couldn't have picked a worse period of years to work on transthyretin amyloidosis and Alzheimer's disease. In the former case, therapies based on stabilizing transthryretin to prevent misfolding emerged to prove effective enough to give investors pause on funding other approaches yet to reach the clinic. In the latter case, amyloid-targeting immunotherapies deployed by large pharmaceutical companies have had their moment of success in recent years, eclipsing any alternative path to amyloid clearance for now.

Secondly, investors care about remaining patent life span, how much is left of the 20 years since the filing date. The high valuation of a drug development company derives from the legal monopoly over its technology given by a patent. Without that high valuation, a company cannot raise the enormous funds required by regulators set up manufacturing and run clinical trials. If a company goes too long without having successfully made the leap to the clinic, then its present and potential future value falters in the eyes of investors. Covalent Biosciences was working with core patents that were already well advanced in years.

One can hope that, once in the public domain, someone will advance the catalytic antibody platform and find uses for it. By the way that the biotech industry works, that will necessarily mean establishing some novel antibody or approach to catalytic antibodies in order to generate novel patents and start the clock ticking once more. Looking at what has happened elsewhere, this might take a decade or more to come to pass - look at how long it took for a company to emerge to pick up work on the DRACO antiviral approach. What we most likely won't see is a company making use of the existing advances and drug candidates, for the reasons of valuation and funding noted above; off-patent technologies do not attract funding, but still have the same regulatory costs. This is the same reason that generic drugs and supplements are largely ignored by the clinical industry, even if they might be very useful, such as the dasatinib and quercetin combination to clear senescent cells. If you think that there really should be a better way to run medical research and development, well, you are not the only one!

Comments

This is incredibly frustrating. The principal researcher behind Covalent also had a good idea for an HIV vaccine, but that never seemed to get any traction either.

Posted by: jimofoz at April 24th, 2025 1:08 AM

A prime example of why drug development is impractical for health in a reasonable time span. Life Extension has had a practical, working senolytic product on the market that I have used for the last 5 years. Meanwhile, the drug industry has been plodding along with nothing practical as an outcome useable by we the aging. Drug are nearly always unnatural, never seen in nature patentable modifications of natural molecules we could be using as supplements 5-10 earlier, at about $30 a month rather than tens of thousands of dollars. Imagine what insurance rates would look like without the drug business.

Posted by: Frank at April 24th, 2025 1:05 PM

It's very sad to read this. Maybe it's only my impression, but it seems that useful antiaging research is going slower and slower with each passing year. Only the marginally useful antiaging R&D is growing, but the really meaningful one, capable in principle of a big change in lifespan, is slowing every day. I'm 51 now and probably I should focus my attention and efforts into cryonics.

Posted by: Antonio at April 26th, 2025 7:55 PM

Hey Frank, do you have an evidence that the LE senolytic actually works? I tried it but did not have any senolytic blood analysis done. Tell us more please. I would love to hear that it actually works. 3 grams of Fisetin for 3 days seems to do nothing for me,

Posted by: Dean at May 3rd, 2025 4:30 PM

Reason, I was happy to see you mentioned the DRACO (now Kimmer Med) approach to anti-virus medicine that you made us all aware of a year ago. I was very curious how that was progressing and so I read their latest news blurb here:
https://www.kimermed.co.nz/articles/the-facts-about-kimer-med
In the past year that have gone from finding cures for 10 human viruses to 21 !!! So they are making progress even though they only have 6 full time employees. They farm out much of their work to experts in certain fields which is probably an efficent method. The big news I wanted to tell you is that one of the viruses they claim to have vanquished is Cytomegalovirus. You are the one who pointed out that this may be responsible for much of the inflammation of aging because our immune system can't clear it. This process is also taking way too long to get to market while millions of people suffer with viral infections!

Posted by: Dean at May 3rd, 2025 4:48 PM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.