Charles River to Add New Rat Models as Part of Drug Discovery Push
Mike Luther, corporate vice president of global discovery research services, told Outsourcing-Pharma.com the models are part of a push by the company to provide more objective endpoints for companies developing pain medications, as well as those looking for higher translation between discovery and first-in-human studies.
Luther, who has been with the company for about a year, said Charles River sees the field of drug discovery as a major growth area, especially as big pharma companies downsize their internal discovery departments.
Some pharma companies are looking to universities, such as Tufts or UC-San Francisco to help with discovery research, Luther noted, “but having a university lab do a proof of principle study just doesn’t make sense.”
He also noted that venture capital investors, which initially stayed away from early phases, now understand “there’s a gap to address in what industry refers to as ‘the valley of death.’”
CRL Models
The four pain models will focus on behavioral, neuropathic, inflammatory and chronic joint indications. One of the models, called the rat monoiodoacetate (MIA) model for osteoarthritis and chronic joint pain, is designed in combination with a dynamic weight bearing measurement system to gather more clinically relevant data.
The rat MIA model mimics the symptoms of osteoarthritis and through a pressure-sensitive sensor mat and video imaging Charles River scientists can observe how investigational compounds impact joint pain by measuring changes to the rat’s movement.
Although the company adopt some transgenic rat models, the models are not proprietary because, as Luther explained, the company wants to use models that are routine and that the FDA can work with.
Charles River also has invested in its discovery business through the acquisitions of Piedmont Research and Cerebricon, both of which are discovery services companies focusing on oncology and neuroscience respectively.
Bias from Animal Models?
According to a recent study in PLOS Biology, meta-analyses of animal studies found rampant bias in the domain of neurological animal literature. The study “suggests strong biases, with selective analysis and outcome reporting biases being plausible explanations, and provides novel evidence on how these biases might influence the whole research domain of neurological animal literature,” the authors said.
Luther commented on the study, noted the potential for bias but said that Charles River is looking to use more traditional immune markers, cytokines and imaging capabilities to stay objective and make their work reproducible.
