Confo Therapeutics is a rising star in Belgium, featured on several local and international lists of up-and-coming biotechs. The company, launched in 2015 as a spin-off of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and VIB, is now taking the big step from the preclinical to the clinical stage with a GPCR drug for neuropathic pain.
Confo is regularly compared to Ablynx and argenx – local biotech stars which are also working with llama-derived antibodies. Despite the similarities, Confo’s technology is very much its own: based on the work of Nobel Prize laureate, Brian Kobilka and research from the lab of Jan Steyaert at VUB, Confo has developed a platform enabling drug discovery for GPCRs – a large family of proteins that play a role in numerous diseases but are notoriously difficult to drug. GPCRs are often hard to screen in the lab because they are unstable outside of their natural environment, but Confo’s antibodies – ConfoBodies® – keep the proteins stable, enabling the mass screening and identification of potential targets for diseases that were previously undruggable.
A promising solution for pain
In 2019, Confo Therapeutics raised a EUR 30 million Series A financing round to take the big step from preclinical- to clinical-stage company with its first drug candidate (CFTX-1554).
“This is really a big milestone for us,” says CEO, Cedric Ververken. “We started as a technology company – a spin-out from academia with a very cool platform, but no therapeutic candidates. Over the past six years, we have built the company, improved the platform, and started our own drug discovery. In early 2022, we will be dosing the first subject with one of our own molecules – identified using our own platform – which we are confident will be safe and efficacious in patients. It’s very exciting!”
Confo is jumping into the deep end with its lead candidate, which is being developed for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain – a challenging indication.
“It’s not an easy disease area,” Ververken admits. “Many neuropathic pain projects have failed, but there is a huge need for new analgesic medicines. Although there are approved products on the market that are treating lots of patients, they either are not working very well or have significant side effects. For example, gabapentinoids are quite effective analgesics, but they also have sedative effects and are abused as recreational drugs. A large percentage of patients will also stop responding to them at some point. Then, their only other option is opioids, which of course have severe side effects of their own and issues with addiction.”
Few new products have been found in the last decade, but Ververken is confident that Confo’s lead candidate has what it takes to make a difference. One of the reasons for this is prior validation of the target by another company: Australian biotech Spinifex. Bought by Novartis in 2015 for USD 200 million, Spinifex was developing a molecule called EMA401, which proved efficacious against neuropathic pain but ultimately failed in clinical trials due to toxicity issues in chronic dosing.
“We understand why EMA401 was toxic,” Ververken says. “It’s related to the chemical structure. Our molecule has the same target as EMA401 but a completely different chemical structure, so we’re expecting the same efficacy but none of the safety issues that Spinifex faced.”
Helping the Belgian ecosystem flourish
In addition to its lead compound, Confo has also been working on the rest of its pipeline. Although the Confo platform initially used antibody tools to drive small molecule drug discovery, the antibody technology has been updated and is now being used to also identify therapeutic antibodies. This opens up the opportunity for more partnerships, and for further drug development for Confo itself – the second most advanced program in the pipeline is now a therapeutic antibody, being developed for an orphan indication in the metabolic space.
“Neuropathic pain is such a broad indication that at some point we will need to partner with a pharma company, whether for clinical development or commercialization. But by picking orphan indications for several of our other candidates, we can shoulder the late-stage clinical development (and maybe even market the drugs) ourselves,” says Ververken. “This is the direction we’re going: keeping the company independent and trying to establish our own footprint.”
“This is the direction we’re going: keeping the company independent and trying to establish our own footprint.” – Cedric Ververken
Despite his ambitions for autonomy, Ververken is also making sure to strengthen ties with partners, new and old. Previously, Ververken has spoken about how the Belgian life sciences ecosystem has helped Confo to grow. Now, the CEO wants to help that same ecosystem flourish.
“Confo and other emerging biotechs in the area are really helping to build the Belgian biotech brand. We’re not Boston yet, but we’re on the right track! There are a lot of international investors looking for the next argenx/Galapagos/Ablynx to invest in, and local ambitious companies help strengthen that view. For example: AgomAb (a Series B company which, like us, is backed by V-Bio Ventures), recently announced an acquisition – not many start-ups would even dream of that!
“We are also determined: we want to build value for patients, but also for the local ecosystem. If you look back at European companies 5-10 years ago, they might not have been ambitious enough; partnering out assets too soon, which means capping the growth of the ecosystem.”
“We want to build value for patients, but also for the local ecosystem.” – Cedric Ververken
One of the things Ververken thinks might help to foster that ambition is empowering new entrepreneurs through informal mentorship.
“Whenever I can, I try to advise people who are moving into the start-up sphere; now and then I also like to call up other CEOs just to brainstorm. I tell my management team to do the same if they have the opportunity to speak with their peers in other companies. An informal network of advisors helps everyone, strengthening the entire ecosystem, which in turn encourages even further growth.”
To meet the challenges of climate change and global food demand, more VCs are investing in AgTech companies. A lot of these companies are using genetic modification to create better plant-based alternatives for animal products. One US company, Nobell Foods, is even developing casein-producing soybean plants that can be used to make plant-based cheese that tastes and melts like the real deal.
Interest from the venture capital (VC) industry in agricultural technology (AgTech) has soared in recent years. In less than a decade, VC investments in AgTech companies increased staggeringly – over 15-fold – to reach about €7 billion in 2020. The current challenges posed by climate change and resource scarcity require a total makeover of our agricultural and food supply systems, and lots of money is being poured into the much-needed transformation. Plants, net absorbers of carbon dioxide, are increasingly seen as part of the solution.
Part of this focus on plant innovation is spurred by a growing community of vegetarian and flexitarian consumers. Driven by ethical, health and environmental concerns surrounding the livestock industry, these consumers have raised the demand for plant-based foods dramatically. Today, the global plant-based meat market is worth an estimated $12 billion. High profile companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are trailblazing in the sector, boasting valuations exceeding those of century-old household names like Carlsberg breweries. Plant-based milk products even accounted for 15% of the US milk market in 2020, and the end of the fast growth of the segment is nowhere near.
Tasty melty cheese – from soybeans!
Recently, US company Nobell Foods raised over $100 million in two separate financing rounds to develop genetically modified (GM) soybeans for human consumption. The genetic modification allows soybean plants to produce large amounts of casein, a protein that makes up 80% of cow’s milk and is important in the cheese-making process. Casein is responsible for the typical melty and stretchy texture of cheese (which results from the clumping together of casein upon acidification or heat treatment during the curd phase), and additionally confers the characteristic cheesy flavour and smell (produced as a result of microbial breakdown and conversion of casein-derived peptides). By developing GM soybeans rich in casein, and a technology to convert the beans into cheese, Nobell is able to make plant-based cheese that tastes, looks, and feels like a dairy product.
The genetic modification allows soybean plants to produce large amounts of casein, a protein that makes up 80% of cow’s milk and is important in the cheese-making process.
Nobell Foods is dreaming big: the company is on a mission to transform the entire cheese industry and thereby become a multibillion-dollar company, aspiring to accomplish what role models like Beyond Meat did for the meat substitutes market. Nobell’s products fit with the entrenched food habits and preferences of cheese-loving consumers, while also meeting demands of vegetarianism and sustainability. According to Nobell Foods, a ton of its casein-containing soybeans produces almost 10 times more cheese than a ton of soybean fed to a dairy cow.
Shifting tides for GM acceptance in Europe?
The technology to genetically modify plants and equip them with traits not normally present in the species is not new. GM plants have been around since the 1980s and are today cultivated on over 200 million hectares, predominantly as a source of animal feed and textiles. The absence of GM foods in Europe’s grocery stores is primarily due to media actions of consumer groups in the 1990s, which lead retail groups to ban GM products from their shelves. For a long time, fighting GM products was a firm top priority for environmental organisations like Greenpeace.
By developing GM soybeans rich in casein, and a technology to convert the beans into cheese, Nobell is able to make plant-based cheese that tastes, looks, and feels like a dairy product.
It is striking then, given the historic opposition, that the Nobell press release for GM cheese has not stirred up much concern from consumers. Other GM examples have also met with a relative non-reaction recently: when Impossible Foods announced leghemoglobin, produced through fermentation by GM yeast, to be a key ingredient in its meat-replacing ‘impossible burger’, anti-GM activists went into a frenzy, but they were met by relative indifference from the average consumer.
Prioritizing sensible solutions to today’s challenges
Changing times bring about changing priorities. In light of the urgency to reach carbon neutrality, and rapidly shifting sentiments on animal welfare, activists will find it increasingly difficult to drive home their view that GM plants are all risks and zero benefits. GM crop cultivation has remained eventless for almost 40 years and has actually helped bring the use of insecticides down. Medical applications of GM technology never met real opposition because benefits were perceived to far outweigh the risks – we may be witnessing a similar shift in attitude towards agricultural applications.
GM and genome editing technology in agriculture could well find more widespread acceptance if deployed to bring solutions that are in sync with consumer priorities, rather than just those of farmers or agriculture companies. In that sense, Nobell Food might become among the first to really defuse this sensitive debate and set a trend for increased investment in areas where AgTech meets climate change and animal welfare. As VC investors broadly active in life sciences, we at V-Bio Ventures welcome a return to a more rational and priority-driven utilisation of tools and solutions enabled by advanced AgTech.
It has been three months since the much-discussed FDA approval of Biogen’s Aduhelm, a treatment for Alzheimer’s Disease. The drug has been celebrated by some as a breakthrough for Alzheimer’s patients, but others remain highly sceptical or even openly opposed to the FDA decision. What has caused the furor? And what will this approval mean for other biotech companies developing new drugs for neurodegenerative diseases (and for the VCs backing them)?
Aducanumab – marketed as Aduhelm – is part of a group of monoclonal antibodies (including donanemab, lecanemab and gantenerumab), that target β-amyloid plaques. The drug aims to help Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) patients by removing these disease-related fibrils from the brain.
It was considered highly improbable that the company would be able to demonstrate that the drug resulted in a slowing of cognitive and functional impairment…
Three trials (PRIME, ENGAGE and EMERGE), performed in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia due to Alzheimer’s, showed that Aduhelm lowers β-amyloid plaques in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Even so, Biogen and its partner Eisai halted clinical testing after a futility analysis on interim data from two of the trials (ENGAGE and EMERGE) suggested they were “unlikely to meet their primary [clinical] endpoint upon completion”. In other words, it was considered highly improbable that the company would be able to demonstrate that the drug resulted in a slowing of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by various cognitive tests.
Nevertheless, a few months later, Biogen claimed that a reanalysis of additional data from the EMERGE trial showed that the drug had achieved a “significant 22% relative reduction in clinical decline”— later supported by data from a subset of patients in the ENGAGE study. Biogen, at that time under high pressure due to its dwindling pipeline, pushed ahead and asked the FDA for approval.
A controversial decision
Despite none of the 11 members of the FDA´s advisory committee considering the drug ready for approval, the FDA decided to green-light Aduhelm under the Accelerated Approval Program. The argument was that there is “substantial evidence that the drug reduces β-amyloid plaques, and that this reduction is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit” – a hitherto unproven hypothesis. In other words: the FDA approved Aduhelm based on a surrogate biomarker and is now expecting Biogen to bring clear evidence in post-approval trials that the biomarker and the clinical benefit indeed correlate.
With a price tag of $56 000 for a year’s treatment, Aduhelm could have a huge impact on the healthcare system if it were to be prescribed broadly.
There is strong genetic evidence that Aβ42 peptides, the main constituents of β-amyloid plaques, have a causative role in Alzheimer’s (at least in patients with familial AD, and probably also in non-familial cases). Having said this, whether the plaques are really the problem or rather a safe way to ‘store away’ toxic Aβ peptide variants, remains unknown. Following the FDA’s decision, three of the advisory committee members have resigned in protest.
Collusion behind closed doors?
Another aspect of the controversy was the FDA deciding on accelerated approval – it was surprising, given that this option was (at least officially) never discussed in meetings between the FDA and Biogen. Moreover, the FDA approval was initially not even limited to the patient population actually enrolled in the clinical studies and so far, pre-screening patients for the presence of plaques is not required and there is no guidance on how long patients should be treated or when to stop. This is alarming, especially considering the treatment can cause severe side effects in up to 44% of patients.
With a price tag of $56 000 for a year’s treatment, Aduhelm could have a huge impact on the healthcare system if it were to be prescribed broadly. Several health insurance providers and hospitals have already declared that they are not willing to prescribe the drug. The FDA’s approval nevertheless sent Biogen’s share prices skyrocketing. The many questions raised by the decision have led to suspicions about an “inappropriate close collaboration” between Biogen and personnel from the FDA – the head of the FDA has now called for an independent federal investigation into her own agency’s approval, which will be conducted by the HHS Office of Inspector General.
Desperate times call for desperate measures
There’s no doubt that Alzheimer treatments – even just to delay the disease progression – are desperately needed. After a void of nearly 20 years, even a partially effective medicine appears as a silver lining on the horizon to many. But what will the outcome be of the Aduhelm decision?
In the most dreadful scenario, β-amyloid reduction will be routinely used to gain accelerated approval for unproved treatments. In fact, a couple of companies with similar antibodies have already announced that they will follow Biogen’s example. As it will take some time to clarify whether β-amyloid reduction actually predicts clinical benefit, this could result in several useless therapies on the market that put patients at risk and waste a lot of money.
Whether Aduhelm works or not, a greater flexibility of the FDA could be a game changer for biotech companies developing new treatments for Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.
On the other hand, this is the first time that the FDA has allowed an accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint in a neurodegenerative disease – the move could signal that the FDA might be more flexible in the future. Whether Aduhelm works or not, a greater flexibility of the FDA could be a game changer for biotech companies developing new treatments for Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.
Hope for the future
Up to now, it has been largely impossible for biotech companies to finance clinical studies with 5+ year durations and to demonstrate the impact of their drug on cognitive decline. If the FDA allows for surrogate endpoints and shorter trials, VCs would be better able to support companies developing both innovative therapies and predictive biomarkers.
In recent years, there has been huge progress made in the detection of Alzheimer’s biomarkers, including simple blood tests. This FDA approval of Aduhelm, problematic as it has been, may yet result in more new and innovative therapeutic approaches being tested in patients. Some of them will hopefully prove successful in delaying the onset or progression of this highly debilitating disease.
A new drug that can identify tumors, trace metastases, and treat cancer – all in one? Belgian start-up Precirix is aiming high with its lead compound – a precision radiopharmaceutical using camelid antibodies to bind to, and irradiate, cancer cells.
Header image: Precirix CEO Ruth Devenyns with CSO/Co-founder Tony Lahoutte.
Initially launched by a group of VUB scientists as Camel-IDS, CEO Ruth Devenyns joined Precirix in 2017. Under her leadership, the company raised a €37 million Series A in 2018 with V-Bio Ventures as lead investor. Since then, Precirix has been hard at work, setting up clinical trials and perfecting the manufacturing process of their unique drugs. With FDA approval in hand, the company is all set to start treating cancer patients in its Phase I/II study, testing the efficacy of their lead candidate against HER2-positive brain tumors. Devenyns explains what sets the Precirix approach apart, even in the world of radiopharmaceuticals:
“Our company is part of a shift in oncology from classical treatments towards targeted therapies. Radiation therapy has been around for decades, but traditional methods (where the patient receives external beams of radiation) are not always precise and can hurt healthy tissue. At Precirix, we’re developing next-gen systemic radiation therapies: radiation delivered through drugs – radiopharmaceuticals – which are capable of accurately binding to cancer cells and killing them, while leaving healthy tissues alone.”
Targeting tumors with camelid antibodies
Precirix’s drugs consist of three vital components, each equally important: the carrier, which targets and binds to the cancer cells; the radioactive isotope, which kills the tumor; and the linker, which joins the carrier and isotope payload together. The type of carrier used by Precirix is what really sets the company apart: where most companies work with monoclonals or peptides, Precirix’s carriers are single-domain antibodies derived from camelids.
“At Precirix, we’re developing radiopharmaceuticals which are capable of accurately binding to cancer cells and killing them, while leaving healthy tissues alone.” – Ruth Devenyns, Precirix
“An important feature of both single-domain antibodies and full monoclonals is that they’re precise and can be generated against any target of interest. The benefit of single-domain antibodies however, is that they are much smaller than monoclonals, so they also have the features of small molecules: they circulate fast in the bloodstream, meaning they can reach the targeted cancer cells quickly, and whatever fraction of the drug remains unbound is quickly eliminated from the body.”
Diagnostic + Therapy = Theranostic
With the broad targeting potential of their antibodies and a range of radioisotopes, Precirix is building a real platform technology, capable of generating a broad pipeline of products. But the benefits of the approach don’t end there. Radioisotopes, like the iodine in Precirix’s lead candidate, are capable of killing cancer cells through radiation. There is a secondary advantage to working with these radioactive compounds though: they can also be used for medical imaging.
“Our approach is theranostic… This means we can select patients with a bias for treatment success.” – Ruth Devenyns, Precirix
“Our approach is theranostic,” explains Devenyns. “In our clinical studies, we first administer a low dose of our product to patients – the exact same substance as the therapeutic drug. The radioisotopes will fluoresce on a CT scan, meaning we can use our drug to get a visual on the tumor. If we see the cancer lesion light up, then we know that the patient definitely has the type of cancer that our drug has been designed to target. This means we can select patients with a bias for treatment success. Another benefit of this approach is that we can also see if the tumor has metastasized and spread to different parts of the body.”
Beating brain cancer
Precirix’s lead compound has been designed to treat in HER2-positive tumors, a specific cancer type that is particularly common in breast and gastric cancers.
“There are many drugs on the market for HER2 cancers,” Devenyns tells us, “Most of them are full monoclonals or antibody-drug conjugates. These drugs can keep HER2-positive cancers under control for many years, as long as the disease doesn’t progress to the brain. Once a patient develops brain lesions, the drugs become ineffective, because the compounds are simply too large to get through the blood-brain barrier. There are currently no available solutions that can help HER2 patients once the cancer has progressed to this stage.”
As mentioned, one of the differentiating features of single-domain antibodies is their small size. Devenyns is hopeful that Precirix’s lead compound will be able to make a difference to these patients in need:
“Many oncologists tell us: ‘if you can help HER2 patients with brain metastices, then you really have something unique’! Through multiple clinical studies with our academic partners, we have been able to demonstrate that our single-domain antibodies can in fact access these brain lesions.”
“With these single-domain antibodies, we can really go after any target of interest – we have a platform technology with huge potential.” – Ruth Devenyns, Precirix
Confident in the drug’s ability to get on target, Precirix is now conducting Phase I/II trials to evaluate the therapeutic effect of its lead compound. Meanwhile, Devnyns is gearing up for a Series B, aiming to progress several preclinical programs also in the pipeline.
“With these single-domain antibodies, we can really go after any target of interest – we have a platform technology with huge potential. With our strong and highly motivated team, we’re all very eager to see our drugs help patients in need. This is what drives us all!”
CEOs of start-ups face many challenges. Among many tasks, they have to set up the organization, write the business plan, build an effective management team and, of course, attract finance. How concerned should they be with the composition of the board? And what can CEOs do to ensure that the board helps rather than hinders their company?
Key considerations when fundraising
Investors often require a board seat along with their funding. When raising cash, CEOs may be tempted to take the money and welcome the board members, no matter their profiles. However, it may be more prudent to take a step back and consider the big picture before approaching potential new investors.
Having an effective board with a common mindset is important for any company; perhaps even more so for an early-stage biotech. Member dynamics play a big part in the effectiveness of a board, so ensuring there is a right mix of people and skills will benefit both the CEO and the company. Start-up boards are dominated by investors, so selecting the right syndicate is an essential first step. But what are some things to bear in mind?
Member dynamics play a big part in the effectiveness of a board, so ensuring there is a right mix of people and skills will benefit both the CEO and the company.
Firstly, it’s important to ensure that members of the investor syndicate have either worked together in the past or have similar approaches and expectations in managing their portfolio companies. Differences between investors, in terms of experience, risk-profile, and the stage of their funds, will accompany the persons joining the board. Any conflicts may result in clashes when determining or changing the strategy of the company. It is hard to find perfectly aligned investors, but CEOs can do their homework on previous investor syndicates. Knowing which combinations have worked in the past (and which have not), will help CEOs target investors that will result in a more effective and harmonious board.
Complimentary crew and an independent captain
Having a good breadth of skills and experience around the table will help board room dynamics immensely. Individuals with different expertise will benefit from each other’s input and jointly be able to guide and support management more effectively. It’s also worthwhile keeping an eye on the numbers though: too many board members can generate an excess of discussion, potential disagreement, and bigger barriers to reaching a consensus. It’s best to run a tight ship with a select crew of complimentary individuals.
Sailing on with the ship analogy, selecting the right captain for your board will also go a long way towards avoiding conflict and achieving success. Whilst a biotech start-up will always have investors at the board table, selecting an independent chairman will benefit all parties involved. An autonomous director who represents neither the investors, the founders, nor the management, can bring balance to a board. It is the role of any chairman to ensure that all opinions are heard, alternatives considered, and decisions are made in a timely and orderly fashion. A strong independent chair can help to secure positive outcomes for all stakeholders and avoid the build-up of unnecessary discord on board.
Empowered board members increase efficiency
The board is responsible for a wide range of tasks. To perform their many functions efficiently, board members need a good deal of individual empowerment. This is particularly important for investment fund representatives, who make up the majority of start-up board members: these individuals need to be able to confidently make decisions without having to consult their team for every decision. Constant consultation slows progress. Of course, there are times where wider input is essential, but in general terms decisions should take place immediately following board discussions.
By providing clear and informative documents in advance, CEOs can help put board members in a position where they can make informed decisions on the spot.
Although CEOs have little control over whether the board members are empowered by their respective funds, they can do things to help the dynamic. By providing clear and informative documents in advance, CEOs can help put board members in a position where they can make informed decisions on the spot. Time is of the essence in start-ups and unnecessary delays can be avoided with a bit of forward planning.
Building trust
Building a trusting relationship between management and board members is essential for the success of a company. The two parties need to be mutually supportive, through both thick and thin. When things go well, boardrooms are relatively calm places where decisions are easily made. However, it’s not always smooth sailing for start-ups: companies often encounter challenges. While overcoming these issues, CEOs need to inform the board of any material impact or plan changes, but they will only feel comfortable doing so if there is already an established relationship of trust. If a CEO’s experience is that of criticism and a lack of support, then the company may run the risk of withholding problems from the board for too long, leading to dire consequences.
Building a trusting relationship between management and board members is essential for the success of a company.
Board meetings should not be the place for surprises, so proactively maintaining open lines of communication is essential. CEOs need to ensure that all board members are fully informed ahead of meetings, so that that they can come prepared to decide on the next steps. Regular interactions with board members in between meetings also help members stay up to date so they can tap into their network when appropriate. Of course, trust needs to be earned, which takes time. But it is in everyone’s interest to build relationships that will allow the CEO to address tough topics and give a sense that “together, we will try to solve this”.
Friend or foe?
CEOs sometimes view board interactions as burdensome and time consuming. If board dynamics are poor, trust is lacking or individual members aren’t empowered to make decisions, board meetings may well be long and counterproductive events. In cases such as these, unfortunately all too frequent, the board may not be considered a friend to management.
On the other hand, when the board is balanced and the relationships are good, a board can be an extremely helpful tool. CEOs can help to ensure this is the case by considering board composition when fundraising, selecting an independent chairman, as well as avoiding boardroom surprises and streamlining decision making through the timely preparation of materials. Delivering on expectations previously set at board meetings will also help build trust. The better the dynamic between the management team and board, the greater the chance of success for the company.
Moderna Therapeutics has never really been a typical biotech. Sure, nowadays it is world famous thanks to its COVID-19 vaccine, which has resulted in an $80 billion market cap and projected sales of $18.4 billion for 2021. But the path to success has not been that of a standard biotech’s journey. Through ups and downs, controversies and triumphs, here’s the fascinating story behind the rise of Moderna and the creation of its COVID-19 vaccine.
Founded in 2010, the goal of ModeRNA Therapeutics (as it was known back then) was to create a therapeutic modality based on mRNA. mRNA is chemically simple: similar to DNA, it’s composed of just 4 building blocks (A, G, C, and U instead of DNA’s T), but unlike the double-helix structure of DNA, mRNA is typically single stranded. It is the middleman in the code of life, translating DNA into a format that can be read by ribosomes which in turn produce proteins. Moderna’s hope was that a new modality based on mRNA would allow for easy manufacturing and could act as a substitute for protein replacement therapies, at a fraction of the cost, in thousands of applicable diseases.
The dream was bold. To understand how revolutionary the idea was not even a decade ago, you can watch this 2013 TEDx talk by CEO Stéphane Bancel, where he explains the company’s concept. The mRNA hype generated by Bancel allowed him to rake in billions of dollars in deals and financing rounds in the ensuing years, driving the valuation of Moderna into unicorn territory. While this was happening, the company embraced controversial stealth mode tactics, not publishing any data, and shrouding its technology in mystery.
Through dark times
In the following years, the grand dream was indeed on the verge of turning into a nightmare. The main disadvantage of mRNA drugs is that the body recognizes them as foreign: similar to an invading virus, they trigger a strong immune response. mRNA is also notoriously unstable and short-lived, only lasting a brief amount of time in the body before being broken down. To insert sufficient mRNA into cells that the protein production would have a measurable impact on a patient, these two major hurdles first had to be overcome.
Moderna’s hope was that a new modality based on mRNA would allow for easy manufacturing and could act as a substitute for protein replacement therapies, at a fraction of the cost, in thousands of applicable diseases.
A discovery by Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman in the 2000s was to provide a solution to the immunogenicity issue. The breakthrough, which was also licensed to BioNTech, lay in modifying the mRNA to make it less visible to the innate immune system by changing uridine (the ‘U’) to pseudouridine. Large portions of Moderna’s war chest were spent on improving this method and solving the mRNA administration issues, initially with limited success. Leaks from within the company sparked concern over how much money was seemingly going down the drain. By 2016, despite having raised hundreds of millions of dollars and running over 100 active programs, the company had yet to progress more than a single compound into the clinic.
Rumors abounded, exacerbated by high-profile departures and reports of a demanding competitive corporate culture more reminiscent of Silicon Valley than of Boston biotech. The company’s secrecy raised suspicions, drawing unfavorable comparisons to Theranos: the high-profile, furtive life sciences unicorn whose implosion rocked the biotech world. Confidence in Moderna’s dream was rapidly dwindling
Into the light
Despite the darkness, a light at the end of the tunnel was rapidly approaching. What do you do if your technology is highly immunogenic and hard to systemically administer? You look for locally administered applications that benefit from immune activation! Given the company’s struggles, Bancel decided to pivot. Vaccines were perhaps not as sexy as the treatments that had been touted, but they could serve as a buffer against failure while the company further improved its mRNA technology.
Much to the chagrin of some employees, who found the strategic changes less than transformational, the focus was shifted to vaccines. Data started emerging in small pilot trials demonstrating that vaccines based on mRNA packaged in lipid nanoparticles could indeed be useful. However, they would have to compete with existing vaccine platforms that were already considered safe and established. This did not stifle confidence in the new approach though: Moderna grew in size and valuation, and went public in late 2018.
Bancel was among the first to learn of a potentially dangerous new virus emerging in Wuhan. He quickly realized it could serve as the perfect showcase for Moderna’s vaccine platform.
Despite the large pipeline, the company’s lack of significant progress kept a lid on the stock price until early 2020. Then, the world changed. Partly thanks to his relationship with the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and its famous director Anthony Fauci, Bancel was among the first to learn of a potentially dangerous new virus emerging in Wuhan. He quickly realized it could serve as the perfect showcase for Moderna’s vaccine platform.
A star is born
The SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence was released on January 11th 2020. As companies with classic vaccine technologies got to work producing proteins or viruses expressing antigens, mRNA companies BioNTech and Moderna raced ahead. One of the advantages of mRNA technology is how quick the code is to create and adapt: following the publication of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence, the Moderna team were able to design the mRNA sequence for its vaccine in merely two days.
The record-breaking speed at which Moderna was able to develop its COVID-19 vaccine is now widely known: the first human trial was launched in May 2020 and, thanks in part to funding from Operation Warp Speed, the company published the successful interim results of its first Phase III trial less than six months later, paving the way for approval by regulatory bodies around the world. On December 18th, 2020, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was the second to be approved by the FDA, a mere seven days after it had approved the mRNA vaccine by BioNTech-Pfizer.
By the time of this publication, many millions of people will have been inoculated with Moderna’s vaccine. The company boasts of a supply forecast of up to 1 billion doses produced by end of 2021, no doubt saving many lives and helping the world get back to normal after the worst pandemic in a century.
Despite the hardships, this year will also be remembered as a triumph of science and human ingenuity. For Moderna, that success was made possible thanks to an audacious CEO who kept selling the dream against all odds, patiently outwaiting the sceptics until he could pounce on the perfect application. It shows that platform technologies, no matter how promising, can take a long time to find their sweet spot. Luck, persistence, and silly amounts of funding may be required, but the investment can be well worth the wait.
Much has been written about the psychology of decision making and how venture capitalists choose which companies they want to fund. Although due diligence is an important part of the process, first impressions and emotions play a huge role in reaching that stage. Diverse teams are vital to making sure that gut reactions aren’t driving poor investment choices in VC funds.
How do venture capitalists make their investment decisions? It’s a common question, frequently asked by entrepreneurs and scientists looking to raise funds. The classic answer is of course: through extensive due diligence. VCs will: study the business case; evaluate the future market need; look at the available data; interrogate the management team; and ask about the patent situation, to keep the competition at bay. After this thorough analysis, VCs will then follow up by consulting experts in different disciplines through many a conference call. Finally, once all the information from internal and external reviews has been collected, the case is weighted and debated by the investment committee. Then, and only then, will the investment decision be made.
Funding, fast and slow
Reading through the number of steps taken by VCs during the due diligence process, you’d be forgiven for thinking that investment decisions are purely based on logic and calculation. However, as will all decisions, funding choices are deeply rooted in human psychology. By considering a different perspective, we can shed light on the internal decision-making process, both leading up to the due diligence and when making the final call.
Prof. Daniel Kahneman is a renowned psychologist and economist noted for his work on behavioral economics (for which he received a Nobel Prize) and the psychology of judgment and decision making. Among other things, Kahneman has studied common human errors that arise from cognitive biases when making decisions in uncertain situations. This topic is particularly relevant for venture capitalists who, by definition, must make decisions while facing a lot of extreme uncertainties.
In his famous book, ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ (2011), Kahneman distinguishes between two cognitive systems involved in decision making:
System 1 is fast, instinctive and emotional; it operates automatically, with little to no effort, and we might refer to it as ‘intuition’.
System 2 is slower, more deliberative and logical; it involves allocating attention to effortful mental activities such as complex computations, and we can define it as ‘data-driven analytical evaluation’.
To see how System 1 might influence the VC decision-making process, we can substitute the question “Is this company worth funding and will it deliver a good return?” with a simpler emotional question like “How much do I like this company?”. These are related, but obviously different, lines of thought, where the second question is in fact not relevant to whether a fund should invest in the company. Indeed, according to Kahneman, although System 2 always has the ability to reject the results of System 1, in reality System 2 is lazy and often endorses System 1’s outcome without much scrutiny. In different stages and to different degrees, both systems play important roles in the funding decisions of VCs.
You’ve got to go through 1 to get to 2
Good salesmen intuitively manipulate both decision-making systems to their benefit. Pitching your new start-up to a VC is in many ways the same as selling a car to a potential buyer: the story needs to spark the listener’s imagination; there needs to be a click, an emotional connection and a genuine interest between the storyteller and the audience.
At most conferences, you’ll encounter investors absolutely inundated with funding requests, whose overwhelmed System 2s have given themselves over to relying on System 1’s decisions.
During an elevator pitch, there is insufficient time for detailed factual discussions. At most conferences, you’ll encounter investors absolutely inundated with funding requests, whose overwhelmed System 2s have given themselves over to relying on System 1’s decisions. According to Kahneman’s theories, the best investment pitches are the ones which activate System 1 of the audience. This is because System 1 quickly substitutes a difficult and multifactorial investment decision with the much simpler question: “Do I like this story?”.
Only once that barrier has been breached, will the path open onto the more advanced steps of the fundraising journey. The story and the data will of course need to hold up in subsequent meetings and deeper, content-driven discussions. But to get to the stage where System 2 takes over, you first need to appeal to System 1, and there is only ever one chance to make a first impression.
When systems fail
Already in 1983, Kahneman and his colleague Tversky found that people usually don’t use probabilities when making decisions. Instead, people fall back on heuristics: mental shortcuts used to quickly form judgements. There are many types of heuristics, but one that can easily lead investors astray is the representativeness heuristic. This heuristic used categorization: a person will assess the similarity of objects and organize them into groups based on similarities. The problem is that this type of classification can easily make mistakes and doesn’t represent real probabilities. Consider the following line of thought:
“The last three IPOs by companies with small molecule pre-clinical programs in orphan diseases were tremendously successful!”
This idea might spur an investor on to make a poor funding decision, because the fact that a company resembles others that have previously succeeded does not necessarily make it more likely to also do well. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, and decisions made on this basis can lead to fantastic investments and splendid VC returns. But this example illustrates the importance of engaging both System 1 and 2 before making a final call.
People usually don’t use probabilities when making decisions. Instead, people fall back on heuristics: mental shortcuts used to quickly form judgements.
Avoiding psychological pitfalls
It’s important for entrepreneurs to consider how decision making can be influenced when trying to win over inventors. For VCs, it’s also crucial to be aware of intrinsic psychological pitfalls like the representativeness heuristic and confirmation biases.
Investment firms have found multiple ways of dealing with these problems. Most VC firms work in partnerships, with unanimous support needed before a project is advanced. When discussing potential new investment cases, some funds even assign a person to play the devil’s advocate to tease out any weakness in the potential portfolio company.
These measures work very well to quell issues, so long as the decision-making teams are diverse enough to avoid having every team member’s System 1 triggered by the same factors. To collectively overcome the inherent imperfections of the human decision-making system, it is also vital that everybody’s input is openly shared and considered.
For our small investment team at V-Bio Ventures, it is a daily challenge to recognize situations where we may be vulnerable to errors and biases. It is one of the reasons we have endeavored to put together a team as diverse as possible, with a mix of backgrounds, knowledge and expertise. We do everything we can to get the best out of both systems and make the right decisions when the stakes are high.
Ghent, Belgium, 8 April 2021 – Today V-Bio Ventures announces its investment in Ghent-based company Protealis, a new spin-off from VIB and ILVO. Inspired by the mission to grow more sustainable plant-based proteins locally, Protealis aims to harvest the full potential of legume crops. With innovative breeding technologies and proprietary seed coatings, Protealis will create new opportunities for European farmers to help overcome Europe’s protein deficit. The initial focus is to develop high-yielding, high-protein soybean varieties. V-Bio Ventures led the EUR 6 million seed financing round joined by Agri Investment Fund (AIF), Participatiemaatschappij Vlaanderen (PMV), Estari Group, Globachem Group, Gemma Frisius Fund and VIB. The capital will support the company’s plans to further develop its proprietary technology, expand its crop portfolio and bring the first soy varieties adapted to local needs to the market by 2022.
Europe is over 70% dependent on import for its supply of protein-rich crops. However, the millions of tons of soy we annually import from South America to cover for our deficits comes at the expense of rain forests and their unique ecosystems. Moreover, there is a growing consumer demand for sustainable, local and more high-quality plant-based protein for direct use in food applications. To future-proof protein supply and consumption in Europe, a shift towards local plant protein production is urgently needed and endorsed by EU and Flanders’ policies. However, soybean varieties bred up until now do not typically thrive in our local soil and climate.
Protealis’ goal is to develop high-protein and high-yielding protein crops that are well adapted to our climate and the needs of local agriculture. Legume crops are an excellent source of protein and can be grown sustainably as they do not require nitrogen fertilization. With their soil-improving characteristics, legumes are an excellent addition for farmers in crop rotation. Soy, with up to 46 grams of protein per 100 grams, is a logical first crop of choice for Protealis. The new company will breed varieties that are very well adapted to northern latitude regions in Europe, ensuring local supply for the fast-growing markets of meat and dairy replacements, as well as for sustainable animal nutrition.
Protealis is based on the strategic alliance of research institutes VIB and ILVO and draws on the unique know-how of each of the partners. This includes a market-ready breeding program based on innovative, non-GM breeding technologies from ILVO and seed coating with proprietary yield-enhancing soil bacteria from VIB. These innovations have been developed and refined over the years at the top research labs of Professors Sofie Goormachtig (VIB-UGent), Jan Michiels (VIB-KU Leuven) and Joke Pannecoucque, and Isabel Roldàn-Ruiz at ILVO.
Protealis is led by Benjamin Laga, former Global Head for Plant Biotech Research at BASF, who brings more than 20 years of international seed business and innovation experience. As CEO, he will also join Protealis’ Board of Directors. Benjamin Laga is joined by Jonas Aper, who has been in charge of the soy breeding program at ILVO since its inception in 2013. This entrepreneurial team is passionate about making a positive impact on the planet and environment created by the opportunity to valorize the combined ILVO-VIB work in a company setting.
Protealis is backed by a solid investor consortium who invested EUR 6 million in a Series A round led by V-Bio Ventures, and with participation of Agri Investment Fund (AIF), Participatiemaatschappij Vlaanderen (PMV), Estari Group, Globachem Group, Gemma Frisius Fund and VIB. The ambition of the investor consortium is to support the market introduction and geographic and product portfolio expansion of the new company. In this way Protealis can maximally live up to its mission statement and bring its high protein crops to European farmers.
Commenting on the announcement, CEO Benjamin Laga says: “My personal aspiration has always been to combine science and technology with entrepreneurship in order to address societal and environmental challenges. And all of that just comes together beautifully in Protealis.”
Willem Broekaert from V-Bio Ventures: “We are proud to bring together a group of experienced investors, supporting Protealis to become a leading player in the plant breeding sector, which historically has not seen much backing from venture capital. We are highly confident that the quality of the team and technology of Protealis will lead to significant value creation for all stakeholders.”
Jérôme Van Biervliet, Managing Director of VIB, says: “Protealis is a perfect example of entrepreneurship in the accelerating biotech ecosystem fostered by VIB. Through our collaborative journey with ILVO, we were able to couple breeding expertise with high-tech research and create an economic opportunity. The intense dedication of many colleagues in the team was vital to make this happen.”
V-Bio Ventures (www.v-bio.ventures) is an independent venture capital firm specialized in building and financing young, innovative life science companies. V-Bio Ventures was established in 2015 and works closely with Belgium-based VIB, one of the world’s premier life science institutes. The fund invests throughout Europe in start-up and early-stage companies with high growth potential focusing on technologies that provide transformational improvements in the biotech, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors.
V-Bio Ventures’ cornerstone investor is the European Investment Fund (EIF). EIF’s contribution is supported by InnovFin Equity, with the financial backing of the European Union under Horizon 2020 Financial Instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) set up under the Investment Plan for Europe. The purpose of EFSI is to help support financing and implementing productive investments in the European Union and to ensure increased access to financing.
Protealis (www.protealis.com) develops superior varieties and seed treatments of leguminous crops. The company’s product offering contributes to the supply of sustainable locally sourced plant-based proteins in Europe. Protealis was founded in 2021 on the basis of innovations in breeding and seed coating from ILVO and VIB. The company completed a Series A financing round of EUR 6.0 million in 2021 with the support of V-Bio Ventures, Agri Investment Fund (AIF), Participatiemaatschappij Vlaanderen (PMV), Estari Group, Globachem Group, Gemma Frisius Fund and VIB.
Header image: Paolo Michieli (courtesy of AgomAb Therapeutics).
Ghent-based AgomAb Therapeutics recently raised a Series B of $74 million, the largest round ever for a Belgian biotech in pre-clinical phase. Based on argenx’ technology, the company is developing HGF-mimetic antibodies for regenerative medicine. AgomAb has come a long way since it’s foundation in 2017 and has been pegged by many as one of the future stars of Belgian biotech.
It was 2018 and Katja Rosenkranz and Paolo Michieli were on a road trip. Rosenkranz’ VC fund, V-Bio Ventures, had just supported the founding of AgomAb Therapeutics, and the pair were on a mission to raise funds for the regenerative medicine company. With Rosenkranz at the wheel, Michieli in the passenger seat beside her, they began their tour with Bio€quity Europe in Ghent. Here, the pair would begin the extraordinary journey that this year culminated in a record-breaking $74 million Series B.
A company long in the making
As is often the case, AgomAb’s story began long before the company’s actual foundation. Back in the 1990s, Paolo Michieli had been a researcher at the National Cancer Institute of the NIH, in the lab that discovered that MET is the Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF) receptor. HGF plays a vital role in many biological processes, including cell growth and division, making it important for organ regeneration and wound healing. When HGF was first discovered, there was a lot of excitement over the tremendous therapeutic promise of a growth factor capable of restoring damaged tissue. However, the excitement soon turned to frustration, as Michieli explains:
“HGF has a half-life of about four minutes and breaks down very quickly in the body. This makes it challenging to manufacture, and difficult to use in a clinical setting.”
I learned of the magnificent potential of the argenx llama antibody platform [and] I realized we could use these antibodies as HGF-mimetics in regenerative medicine. – Paolo Michieli, AgomAb Therapeutics
What scientists needed was an HGF-mimetic; something that would replicate the effects of the growth factor, but with better drug-like properties. For lack of a clear solution, research into HGF as a potential regenerative therapy floundered. Then, around 2010, Michieli received a call:
“As an expert in growth factor biology, I was contacted by argenx for a collaboration on their MET program in oncology, which I accepted. During this period, I learned of the magnificent potential of the argenx llama antibody platform. I discovered that, in addition to the antagonistic antibodies being studied by argenx for oncological purposes, some of the antibodies were actually agonistic. I realized we could use these antibodies as HGF-mimetics in regenerative medicine. We subsequently agreed on a licensing deal with argenx which led to the foundation of AgomAb”
Re-founding in Belgium
This brings us to 2017: Michieli and his Italian colleagues had been investigating the potential of these HGF-mimetic antibodies and were extremely pleased with what they were seeing. To raise funds for the fledgling company, Michieli packed a suitcase and returned to Belgium, where he was introduced to several VCs by his friends at argenx.
“The first investor I was introduced to was Christina Takke,” Michieli says. “V-Bio Ventures was the first pitch I ever completed in my life! Evidently the pitch went well, because that very evening we got a call to say V-Bio was intrigued by our work. They were very fastidious about the due diligence however: before committing to the seed round, they provided us with a convertible loan to conduct a series of de-risking studies. We designed these experiments together to test the safety of the approach; once we had obtained convincing data, V-Bio provided seed financing and in parallel started the preparations for a large Series A round. With argenx and our lead investor both based in Ghent, we decided to found AgomAb in Belgium to take advantage of the local ecosystem, which offers an ideal milieu for biotech development and is particularly rich in antibody expertise.”
V-Bio really is unique in taking on these ‘earlier-than-early-stage’ projects, providing academics like Paolo with the practical support they need while the company is still getting set up. – Katja Rosenkranz, V-Bio Ventures
The company initially operated in stealth mode, with V-Bio supporting Michieli by taking care of the practical day-to-day management tasks. Katja Rosenkranz took on the role of interim CEO in the lead up to AgomAb’s Series A, creating the pitch deck and financial plan, and making vital introductions to investors and the people who were to become AgomAb’s future executive team. Behind the scene, Tim Knotnerus was also supporting the company since 2017 and by early 2019 the V-Bio team convinced him to join as the CEO going forward. Soon after the series A closing, CDO Torsten Dreier was also brought on board. Rosenkranz recalls:
“We reached out to Torsten, co-founder and at that time CDO of argenx, to see if he knew someone who could help AgomAb with its CMC. Instead of suggesting someone else, he actually came back and said: ‘Hey, I would like to be part of this story myself!’.”
From A to B
With Knotnerus and Dreier onboard, AgomAb finally came out of stealth mode with a $25 million Series A round in 2019. Supported by a strong international investor syndicate, the company expanded its work on testing their HGF-mimetic antibodies in a range of indications. Starting with liver fibrosis, AgomAb’s exploratory pre-clinical activities have demonstrated the potential of its technology in numerous prospective applications. The antibodies have shown promise in tissue protection, repair and even regrowth in a large variety of pre-clinical efficacy models.
Success stories in the making – like AgomAb – are the reason why we’re so committed to supporting the translation of great science into start-ups! – Katja Rosenkranz, V-Bio Ventures
It’s this extraordinary potential and versatility of the platform that had investors excited enough to pitch in the $74 million raised in the Series B, despite the fact that the company has yet to move into the clinic. With these fresh funds onboard, AgomAb is currently conducting IND enabling studies for its lead-compound – a full MET agonist. Although the specific indications are still being kept under wraps. It’s safe to say, the company has come a very long way in a short amount of time and is far from done growing. Reflecting back on that fateful road trip in 2018, Katja fondly reminisces:
“I am so pleased to have seen AgomAb come so far over the past five years! It was one of the first dossiers on my desk when I started with V-Bio, and the roadshow with Paolo was a real bonding moment for both of us. It’s such a privilege, being part of the founding of a company with such a huge potential to improve people’s lives. But V-Bio really is unique in taking on these ‘earlier-than-early-stage’ projects, providing academics like Paolo with the practical support they need while the company is still getting set up. It is amazing to see what the team has accomplished since then and bringing on board the new set of US investors provides further optionality for the company going forward. Success stories in the making – like AgomAb – are the reason why we’re so committed to supporting the translation of great science into start-ups!”
Header image: Willem Broekaert, Shelley Margetson and Christina Takke (left to right) © Ine Dehandschutter
V-Bio Ventures recently announced their second fund, with the first closing already totaling 78 million euros [final close at 110 million euros – Ed.]. As a VC fund with a focus on early-stage life sciences companies, V-Bio will be using Fund 2 to continue supporting European start-ups working on effective healthcare or sustainable agriculture solutions. In this interview, co-founders Christina Takke and Willem Broekaert, along with new Managing Partner Shelley Margetson, share some success stories from V-Bio’s first five years and how they plan to create value for both investors and society in the future.
What led to the founding of the first V-Bio fund, five years ago?
Christina: VIB is a world-renowned research institute, with a long track record of spin-off companies. Despite this, in the mid 2010s they were finding there was a lack of funding options for early-stage companies, both for themselves and in general in the Benelux region. To meet this need, VIB decided to create a Venture Capital fund that would have a special relationship with the institute. Willem and I were brought on board to set up the fund, supporting the translation of promising research findings into start-up companies. We established a “preferred partnership” with the institute, where V-Bio has a proprietary and exclusive period of access to the VIB deal flow. As part of this, we have a close working relationship with the VIB tech transfer team and researchers, where we provide a sounding board and strategic advice very early on, to help select good candidate programs for spin-offs and support companies through the crucial first steps after founding.
Our aim with these companies isn’t only to create monetary value but to invest in innovations that will have a positive impact on society. For us, this means focusing on effective healthcare and sustainable agriculture. – Shelley Margetson
Willem: Despite this close relationship with VIB, V-Bio is as an independent fund, investing in VIB spin-offs but also in other start-ups sourced from around Europe. We see this as the best way to build a portfolio of companies that is appealing to other investors, including international funds. One of our missions has always been to increase foreign interest in local biotech opportunities, to bring capital and knowledge back into the Benelux ecosystem. When you look at the portfolio of V-Bio Fund 1, it’s clear we’ve achieved this: we’ve been able to draw international investors to the region to fund very early-stage science. With Fund 2, we’re continuing this mission, and have managed to solidify our position as one of the larger European early-stage funds in life sciences. We want to ensure that the Benelux has a sustainable fund for early-stage life sciences investments, with strong links to a whole network of international investors.
Can you tell us about Fund 1? What are some success stories that you’re especially proud of?
Christina: The V-Bio Fund 1 closed in 2015 with 76 million euro. At the time, our team consisted of just the two of us, but we quickly built a diverse, well-rounded team by recruiting people with strong backgrounds in science and investment. We put together a portfolio of 15 excellent companies, with an even split between seven VIB spin-offs and eight independent start-ups, working with universities all around Europe. With this portfolio we’re not going for a quick cash exit; we’ve already supported most of these companies through their foundation, then through Series A and B rounds where new external investors were brought on board after recognizing the increased value we have generated. We will continue to support these companies, even as we build a new portfolio with Fund 2.
Willem: The success of the Fund 1 portfolio is really nicely illustrated by the growth of the companies themselves, several of which V-Bio was really instrumental in founding. AgomAb is a good example: a llama antibody start-up built on research originating from the University of Torino in Italy. We played a crucial role in getting the company started both in terms of seed funding, initial management (which was done in-house by a V-Bio team member) and getting the company set up in Belgium. By establishing AgomAb here, in an area that’s brimming with antibody expertise (argenx founder Torsten Dreier eventually became AgomAb’s CDO), we were able to leverage the local environment to strengthen the company while also enriching that ecosystem with an influx of new scientists and IP. Several years on, and AgomAb is now gearing up for what’s looking to be a stellar Series B round.
V-Bio helps to create companies, but also ensure that start-ups are well managed and supported through the difficult early-stages until value is created that can attract larger rounds. – Christina Takke
Another example of a company V-Bio helped found is Aphea.Bio, a VIB spin-off developing microbiome-based products for sustainable agriculture. Again, we set up the seed round, led the Series A and supported the 14-million-euro Series B which was led by an external, international party we helped bring to the table. It has been a huge success story, particularly for an agriculture company: following the Series B, Aphea.Bio is now one of the largest ag start-ups in Europe. The company, based in Ghent, has become an important local entity both in terms of presence and employment.
Christina: For several of our other portfolio companies, like Confo Therapeutics and Orionis Biosciences, we weren’t part of the formal founding itself but were crucial in their internationalization and the growth. Precirix is another perfect example: previously known as Camel-IDS, the company was already established when V-Bio came on board but needed a boost to generate more interest and help it to really take off. We were instrumental in the evolution of the company into something large and exciting enough that it has now managed to attract the attention of an international consortium of investors. It’s what we do: V-Bio helps to create companies, but also ensure that start-ups are well managed and supported through the difficult early-stages until value is created that can attract larger rounds.
Will the investment strategy for Fund 2 remain the same?
Shelley: With further fundraising still ongoing Fund 2 is already larger than our first fund was at final closing. We’re pleased to be continuing our successful investment strategy. We’re maintaining our European focus – supporting promising start-up creation and early-stage companies. We plan to build a second portfolio of about the same size as the first, around 12 – 15 companies. With the larger fund we’ll simply have more fire power per company. And speaking of strategy, our aim with these companies isn’t only to create monetary value but to invest in innovations that will have a positive impact on society. For us, this means focusing on effective healthcare and sustainable agriculture. We want to help create products and technologies that matter.
The idea with V-Bio was always to establish a brand in the industry in the Benelux region that is there for the long haul… a fund that institutes and companies can trust to be there going forwards. – Willem Broekaert
Willem: We’re fortunate that what we do benefits both society and the local life sciences ecosystem. As we did with Fund 1, we’re about to embark on a 5-year plan to find new companies, with an option for a further 7 years of support through later financing rounds. The idea with V-Bio was always to establish a brand in the industry in the Benelux region that is there for the long haul. A VC with a Fund 1, 2, 3, 4…etc. We want to create something that the ecosystem can build on, a fund that institutes and companies can trust to be there going forwards.
What sets V-Bio apart from other VCs?
Christina: V-Bio is a fund with a difference, and what it all comes down to is diversity. Our portfolio is diverse, in part due to our unique access to the VIB deal flow but also because we choose to invest in solid scientific ideas from various fields around Europe. We also have a very diverse team, which has become even more so with the addition of Shelley Margetson (we now have six different nationalities represented in a team of eight)! If you look at other funds, the management teams are often very homogenous in terms of people’s background, gender, experience, nationality etc. We’re very different from the grey-suited bankers, or the young-and-fast techies; the V-Bio team is more well-rounded, and we really care about supporting good science for a better future.
V-Bio is a fund with a difference, and what it all comes down to is diversity. – Christina Takke
Shelley: I have been in biotech for over 20 years, but until now it was always on the entrepreneurial side. The time felt right to move to the other side of the table. I got to know V-Bio when I was CEO of OCTIMET, as Christina and Ward from V-Bio were board members. I’ve had plenty of first-hand experience in working closely with investors and what I saw during my time at OCTIMET convinced me that V-Bio really is different from other investors. They truly have a genuine interest in helping the company to evolve, to create value both financially and for society. This was, above all else, why I decided V-Bio was the right VC team for me to join!