Questions Rise Over Anti-Aging Drugs
Doubts grow over resveratrol and other compounds under development at the GSK company.
Earlier this year, a group at Pfizer published a study
challenging the research that became the cornerstone of Sirtris, a high-profile company that is developing compounds to treat or prevent the diseases of aging. This set off a chain of
questions over the Boston-area start-up, which was
bought in 2008 by GlaxoSmithKline for a hefty $270 million.
Sirtris has captured headlines
for its efforts to combat aging-related maladies.
The company is testing compounds called sirtuin activators, named for their
reported ability to activate SIRT1, an enzyme thought to play a
crucial role in aging.
The Pfizer study suggested that resveratrol, a compound
found in red wine, and other molecules under development at Sirtris, don’t
really activate this key enzyme and may not even have the life-extending
benefits that have been reported by Sirtris founder David Sinclair and others. Previous
research had raised similar questions. But until recently, the debate was
limited largely to the academic arena.
This story is only available to subscribers.
Don’t settle for half the story.
Get paywall-free access to technology news for the here and now.
Subscribe now
Already a subscriber?
Sign in
You’ve read all your free stories.
MIT Technology Review provides an
intelligent and independent filter for the
flood of information about technology.
Subscribe now
Already a subscriber?
Sign in
A piece in Nature outlines the rather technical
arguments over Sirtris’s sirtuin activators and what it might mean for the
company and for anti-aging research more broadly. “The sirtuin stuff has just sort of been a runaway
train,” Brian Kennedy, biologist at the University of Washington in
Seattle, told Nature. Kennedy was
lead author on one of the papers that proposed that resveratrol’s apparent
effect on sirtuins was an experimental artifact. “We might have caused the
train to wobble a little, but it kept barrelling down the tracks,” he
said.
According to Nature, the Pfizer study
…presented evidence that the compounds were inhibiting a slew of other
proteins – and some of the mice taking high doses of the drugs died. The paper
concluded that the Sirtris compounds and resveratrol were pharmacological
dead-ends owing to “their highly promiscuous profiles”.
… Some labs have been unable to consistently reproduce
Sinclair’s life-extending results in model organisms such as fruitflies and
nematodes,
and debate has simmered over whether SIRT1 activation truly mimics caloric
restriction.
However, the article says
… Most researchers seem to agree with Sirtris that the SIRT1-activating
compounds do have beneficial effects in mice. Rafael de Cabo at the National
Institute on Aging in Baltimore, Maryland, and a co-author on the 2006 Nature paper, says that he has safely tested one of the
compounds, SRT1720, in more than 1,000 mice, some of which received the
compound for two years. At least three other groups have published data showing
that SRT1720 is beneficial and non-toxic in mice.
Sirtris and GSK have dismissed the controversy. Because the company aims to market
drugs that slow or prevent the diseases of aging rather than extend longevity, sirtuin
activators’ effects on lifespan may not matter.
Derek Lowe, who writes the pharma industry blog In
The Pipeline, has closely followed the latest
dust-up. He concludes that the controversy will only be settled with the
outcome of ongoing clinical trials of Sirtuins compounds. But, he notes,
But we may not find out very quickly. GSK has (like many other companies) a
tendency to be rather close-mouthed about the progress of some of its research.
When I worked in the nuclear receptor field, we all were very interested in the
fate of a particular Glaxo compound, the first selective PPAR-delta ligand to
go into the clinic. The company had talked about some animal and preclinical
data, but we knew that they were taking it into humans (after all, it was
listed that way in their pipeline updates). But it stayed listed like that. .
.and stayed…and stayed…until, as the months and years passed, it became
obvious to even the most optimistic observer that the compound’s development
was (at the very least) extremely complicated, and (more likely) had actually
quietly ceased a good while before, albeit with no change in its public status.