Cellares, which last year became the first company to receive the FDA’s new advanced manufacturing technology designation, expects to support clinical production this year and offer commercial-scale manufacturing services in 2027.

Cellares has raised $257 million in series D financing to complete the construction of cell therapy manufacturing plants in anticipation of supporting commercial-scale production next year.

San Francisco–based Cellares has developed its Cell Shuttle platform, a closed and automated platform for making cell therapies. By integrating end-to-end cell therapy production capabilities into a box, the company claims to reduce process failures, labor needs and facility space requirements, ultimately reducing the cost of CAR Ts and other cell therapies.

Last April, Cellares became the first company to receive advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) designation from the FDA. The company’s customers include Bristol Myers Squibb, which in 2024 struck a worldwide CAR T capacity reservation and supply deal worth up to $380 million in upfront and milestone payments.

Having built a production facility in New Jersey, Cellares will use its newly raised series D funds to finish construction of manufacturing plants in Japan and the Netherlands. BlackRock and Eclipse co-led the round.

Cellares disclosed the leasing of a 105,000-square-foot facility in the Netherlands earlier this month. The new life sciences facility is under development with construction expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2026. Cellares will then prepare the site for operations with the aim of supporting clinical production later this year and offering commercial-scale manufacturing services in 2027.

The facility will position Cellares to make cell therapies for patients in Europe. Because cell therapies are often personalized and time-sensitive, the company sees regional production capacity as an important enabler of the progress of programs through the clinic and into commercial use.

The BMS agreement positioned Cellares to make CAR T cell therapies for the pharma in the U.S., European Union and Japan. BMS, which operates its own cell therapy plants, sells the CAR T cancer treatments Abecma and Breyanzi.

Cellares has also partnered with Cabaletta Bio, with whom the contract manufacturer expects to make the first good manufacturing practice cell therapy product for clinical use on its Cell Shuttle platform. The FDA recently cleared an amendment to Cabaletta’s clinical trial authorization, positioning the biotech to start infusing patients with CAR T cell therapies made on Cell Shuttle in the first half of 2026.

The series D round moves the total raised by Cellares above $600 million. The company raised a $255 million series C round in 2023. After a series of private rounds, the company is planning an initial public offering as early as the fourth quarter of 2027, according to Endpoints News.

A Viewpoint published in Genomic Psychiatry by Dr. Mayana Zatz and colleagues at the Human Genome and Stem Cell Research Center, University of São Paulo, examines why Brazil represents one of the most valuable yet underutilized resources for understanding extreme human longevity. The synthesis draws upon the team’s ongoing research with a nationwide cohort of long-lived individuals while contextualizing recent advances in supercentenarian biology.

Where genetic diversity meets exceptional aging

Why do some humans live beyond 110 years while most never approach the century mark? The question has captivated researchers for decades, yet answers remain frustratingly elusive.

Part of the problem, Dr. Zatz and her co-authors argue, lies in where scientists have been looking. Most genomic datasets lack adequate representation of admixed populations, creating blind spots that may obscure precisely the protective mechanisms researchers seek.

“This gap is especially limiting in longevity research, where admixed supercentenarians may harbor unique protective variants invisible in more genetically homogeneous populations,” explains Mateus Vidigal de Castro, first author of the Viewpoint and researcher at the Human Genome and Stem Cell Research Center.

Brazil offers something no other nation can match. Beginning with Portuguese colonization in 1500, followed by the forced migration of approximately 4 million enslaved Africans, then waves of European and Japanese immigration, the country developed what the authors describe as the world’s richest genetic diversity.

A first genomic study of a cohort of over 1,000 Brazilians older than 60 revealed 2 million novel genetic variants. More than 2,000 mobile element insertions and over 140 HLA alleles absent from global genomic databases were found among older Brazilians alone. A more recent study identified more than 8 million undescribed genomic variants in the Brazilian population, with over 36,000 putatively deleterious.

The remarkable cohort

The research team has assembled something extraordinary. Their longitudinal ongoing study encompasses over 160 centenarians, including 20 validated supercentenarians, distributed across multiple Brazilian regions with heterogeneous social, cultural, and environmental backgrounds.

Among the participants was Sister Inah, recognized as the oldest person in the world until her death on 30 April 2025 at age 116. The cohort also included the two oldest men in the world. One died last November, at age 112 while the second one is currently 113 years old.

What distinguishes this population extends beyond mere numbers. At the time of contact with researchers, some Brazilian supercentenarians remained lucid and independent in basic daily activities. Many participants come from underserved regions with limited access to modern health care throughout their lives, providing a rare opportunity to investigate resilience mechanisms beyond medical intervention.

Familial clusters illuminate heritability

One case stands out with particular clarity. A 110-year-old woman in the cohort has nieces aged 100, 104, and 106 years, representing one of Brazil’s longest-lived families ever documented. The oldest one, currently aged 106, was a swimming champion at age 100. Such familial clustering aligns with prior evidence that siblings of centenarians are 5 to 17 times more likely to reach centenarian status themselves.

Can these rare familial constellations help disentangle genetic from epigenetic contributions to extreme longevity? “Investigating such rare familial clusters offers a rare window into the polygenic inheritance of resilience and may help disentangle the genetic and epigenetic contributions to extreme longevity,” notes Dr. de Castro.

The biology of exceptional survival

The Viewpoint synthesizes recent findings about what makes supercentenarians biologically distinct. Their peripheral blood lymphocytes maintain proteasomal activity comparable to much younger individuals. Autophagy mechanisms remain functional and upregulated, enabling efficient clearance of misfolded proteins.

Single-cell transcriptomic analyses have revealed marked expansion of cytotoxic CD4⁺ T cells adopting transcriptional programs typically associated with CD8⁺ lymphocytes, a profile virtually absent in younger controls.

Recent multi-omics analysis of a 116-year-old American-Spanish supercentenarian revealed exclusive or rare variants in key immune-related genes including HLA-DQB1, HLA-DRB5, and IL7R, alongside variants in genes associated with proteostasis and genomic stability.

The authors suggest immune aging in supercentenarians should not be viewed as generalized decline but rather as differential adaptation, functional resilience rather than deterioration. Interestingly, differently from the American-Spanish super old woman, who followed a Mediterranean diet, the Brazilian supercentenarians refer to no food restriction.

Surviving COVID-19 before vaccines existed

Perhaps the most striking demonstration of biological resilience came during the pandemic. Three Brazilian supercentenarians in the cohort survived COVID-19 in 2020, before any vaccination was available. Immunology assays revealed these individuals displayed robust levels of IgG and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, alongside plasma proteins and metabolites related to innate immune response and host defense.

How did individuals exceeding 110 years of age mount effective immune responses against a novel pathogen that killed millions of younger people worldwide? The convergence of robust immune cell function, preserved protein maintenance systems, and systemic physiological integrity makes supercentenarians an exceptional model for studying biological resilience.

Brazil’s global position in longevity

The statistics are remarkable. Three of the 10 longest-lived validated male supercentenarians in the world are Brazilian, including the oldest living man, born on 5 October 1912.

This achievement gains significance considering that extreme male longevity is substantially less common than female longevity, attributed to factors including higher comorbidity burden, increased cardiovascular risk, and hormonal and immunological differences.

Access to validated samples of female and male supercentenarians who lacked access to modern medicine provides a rare scientific opportunity to investigate resilience factors in a typically underrepresented group.

Among women, Brazilian female supercentenarians in the top 15 longest-lived worldwide surpass numbers from more populous and developed countries, including the United States.

The research agenda

Beyond whole-genome sequencing, the team is deriving cellular lineages from selected individuals for downstream functional assays and multi-omics analyses. The goal extends beyond validating findings from non-admixed cohorts. They aim to uncover novel protective variants and mechanisms specific to the Brazilian population, discoveries that may contribute to precision medicine approaches globally relevant yet locally tailored to diverse populations.

Moreover, in collaboration with the team of Prof. Ana Maria Caetano de Faria from the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, they will investigate the immunological profile of this cohort.

The authors issue a direct call to international longevity and genomics consortia: expand recruitment to include ancestrally diverse and admixed populations such as Brazil, or provide financial support for genomic, immunological, and longitudinal studies that deepen scientific insight while enhancing equity in global health research.

Resilience as the central theme

Supercentenarians represent far more than examples of extended biological survival. They embody resistance, adaptability, and resilience, precisely the qualities biomedical research must seek to unravel if the goal is not merely extending lifespan but enhancing quality of life in aging populations.

Rather than merely surviving to extreme old age, these individuals actively resist the hallmarks of aging, offering insights that could reshape understanding of longevity and inform future interventions to extend health span.

“International longevity and genomics consortia should expand recruitment to include ancestrally diverse and admixed populations, such as Brazil’s, or provide financial support for genomic, immunological, and longitudinal studies that deepen scientific insight and enhance equity in global health research,” states Dr. Mayana Zatz, corresponding author and Professor at the University of São Paulo.

This Viewpoint article represents a critical synthesis of current knowledge regarding supercentenarian biology and the unique opportunities presented by Brazil’s admixed population for advancing longevity research. By integrating findings from genomic, immunological, and clinical studies with a description of an exceptional ongoing cohort, the authors offer both a scientific framework and a compelling case for diversifying longevity research beyond traditionally studied populations.

The synthesis highlights patterns invisible in studies limited to genetically homogeneous groups while identifying the most promising avenues for understanding how some humans achieve extraordinary lifespans while remaining functional and resilient.

A comprehensive genetic investigation led by Dr. Feng Liu at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital has uncovered striking molecular connections between schizophrenia and bone health, identifying 195 shared genetic loci that may explain why psychiatric patients face elevated fracture risks.

The research, published in Genomic Psychiatry, analyzed genomic data from over half a million individuals and reveals that these two seemingly unrelated conditions suggest overlapping biological pathways at the molecular level.

The paper is titled “Shared genetic architecture between schizophrenia and osteoporosis revealed by multilevel genomic analyses.”

The finding carries immediate clinical weight. Patients with schizophrenia experience osteoporosis at rates far exceeding the general population, yet clinicians have lacked genetic explanations for this troubling pattern.

Now, with 1,376 protein-coding genes mapped to shared risk regions, researchers possess a molecular roadmap that could inform future preventive strategies for vulnerable psychiatric patients.

The scientific challenge

Why would a disorder of thought and perception share genetic roots with a disease of bone fragility? This paradox has puzzled researchers for decades.

Epidemiological studies have consistently documented that individuals with schizophrenia carry lower bone mineral density and suffer more fractures than matched controls. Vitamin D deficiency, metabolic disturbances, and antipsychotic medications have all been implicated. Yet these explanations felt incomplete.

The human genome held clues that traditional clinical observation could never detect. Both schizophrenia and osteoporosis are highly heritable conditions, each influenced by thousands of genetic variants scattered across chromosomes. If even a fraction of those variants overlapped, it would suggest shared biological underpinnings far deeper than environmental factors or medication side effects.

Previous attempts to quantify this overlap yielded mixed results. Standard methods like linkage disequilibrium score regression captured only average correlations across the genome, potentially missing regional hotspots of shared risk. The field needed analytical approaches sophisticated enough to detect genetic sharing even when variants exerted opposing effects on different traits.

Could novel computational methods reveal what simpler analyses obscured?

Revolutionary approach

Dr. Liu’s team assembled an analytical arsenal in this research domain. They combined three complementary genomic methods, each probing genetic overlap at a different resolution.

MiXeR quantified global polygenic overlap across the entire genome. LAVA examined local genetic correlations within specific chromosomal regions. The conditional/conjunctional false discovery rate framework identified individual variants associated with both conditions simultaneously.

The data foundation proved equally impressive. Schizophrenia statistics came from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium’s landmark study of 130,644 individuals. Osteoporosis-related data encompassed six phenotypes measured across cohorts ranging from 8,143 to 426,824 participants. Bone mineral density measurements spanned multiple skeletal sites: total body, lumbar spine, femoral neck, forearm, and heel.

This multilevel strategy offered advantages that single-method approaches could not match. Where global analyses might average away regional signals, local correlation testing preserved them.

Where traditional methods required concordant effect directions, MiXeR detected sharing regardless of whether variants increased or decreased disease risk. The combination created a three-dimensional portrait of genetic architecture impossible to achieve through any single analytical lens.

Statistical rigor remained paramount throughout. The team excluded genomic regions with complex linkage patterns that could generate spurious signals. They applied Benjamini-Hochberg corrections to control false discovery rates. Model fit was evaluated using Akaike Information Criterion statistics. These precautions ensured that identified associations reflected genuine biology rather than statistical artifacts.

Unexpected patterns across skeletal sites

The results revealed genetic sharing more complex and site-specific than anyone anticipated. Not all bones told the same story.

Among the osteoporosis-related phenotypes examined, heel bone mineral density (BMD) showed the most prominent genetic overlap with schizophrenia across multiple analytical levels.

At the global polygenic level, schizophrenia and heel BMD shared 329 trait-influencing variants, ranking second only to the schizophrenia–osteoporosis diagnosis pair (495 shared variants) among all phenotype pairs analyzed.

At the regional level, local genetic correlation analyses identified 44 genomic regions showing significant associations between schizophrenia and heel BMD, with comparable numbers of positive and negative correlations. At the variant level, 140 shared genomic loci were identified between schizophrenia and heel BMD, markedly exceeding those observed for other skeletal sites.

In comparison, total body BMD showed 41 shared loci, whereas lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD exhibited only a limited number of statistically significant shared loci (six and four loci, respectively).

Notably, no significant shared loci were detected between schizophrenia and forearm BMD. Given the relatively small GWAS sample size for forearm BMD (N = 8,143), this null finding may reflect limited statistical power; however, the possibility of a genuinely weaker genetic association between forearm BMD and schizophrenia cannot be excluded and warrants further investigation in larger datasets.

Effect directions added another layer of complexity. Only 21% to 68% of shared variants showed concordant effects across trait pairs. This means many genetic variants that increase schizophrenia risk simultaneously decrease bone density, while others push both traits in the same direction.

Such mixed effect patterns explain why previous genome-wide correlation studies yielded modest results despite substantial underlying genetic overlap.

Molecular mechanisms illuminated

Functional annotation transformed genetic coordinates into biological meaning. The 195 shared loci mapped to 1376 protein-coding genes, and these genes did not scatter randomly across biological pathways.

Enrichment analysis revealed 59 significantly overrepresented biological process terms. Organonitrogen compound metabolism topped the list.

These pathways govern amino acid processing and nitrogen-containing molecule handling, functions essential for neurotransmitter synthesis in the brain and matrix protein production in bone. The same molecular pathways involved in synaptic signaling may also contribute to the formation of collagen scaffolding in healthy skeletal tissue.

Anatomical structure development appeared prominently among enriched terms. This category encompasses the genetic programs that guide tissue formation during embryonic development and maintain tissue architecture throughout life. Brain and bone both require precisely orchestrated developmental processes, and variants affecting these programs could plausibly influence both organs.

Biological regulation pathways completed the picture. These broad categories encompass the signaling cascades and feedback loops that coordinate cellular behavior across organ systems. Phosphorus metabolic processes, catabolic pathways, and cellular nitrogen compound biosynthesis all achieved statistical significance.

Whether these shared pathways represent true causal mechanisms, or reflect statistical associations remains an open question. The data cannot distinguish causation from correlation. Yet the biological coherence of identified pathways suggests functional relevance rather than chance overlap.

The team behind the discovery

This investigation required expertise spanning psychiatric genetics, skeletal biology, and advanced computational methods. Li-Ning Guo, Qi An, and Zhi-Hui Zhang contributed equally as first authors, reflecting the collaborative intensity required.

Feng Liu at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital served as corresponding author alongside Meng-Jing Cai at Henan Provincial People’s Hospital and Zhi-Jian Wei at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. This multi-institutional partnership brought together radiology, orthopedics, and psychiatric genomics expertise across three major Chinese medical centers.

Clinical implications and prevention potential

These findings arrive with immediate translational relevance. Psychiatrists treating schizophrenia patients might eventually incorporate genetic risk scores for bone health into clinical decision-making. Those carrying high-risk variants at shared loci could receive proactive bone density monitoring and earlier intervention.

The data also raise questions about medication selection. If certain genetic variants predispose to both schizophrenia and bone fragility, do some antipsychotic medications interact with these pathways more than others? Could pharmacogenomic approaches optimize treatment selection to minimize skeletal side effects in genetically vulnerable patients?

Population-level screening represents another possibility. As polygenic risk scoring matures, integrated assessments capturing both psychiatric and skeletal vulnerability could identify individuals warranting comprehensive preventive care spanning multiple organ systems.

What biomarkers might help translate these genetic findings into bedside tools? Could specific blood tests capture the metabolic dysfunction underlying both conditions? These questions await future investigation.

Limitations and caveats

Honest acknowledgment of constraints strengthens rather than weakens these conclusions. All analyzed individuals traced European ancestry, limiting generalizability to other populations. Trans-ethnic studies will need to determine whether identified genetic overlaps replicate across diverse genetic backgrounds.

The six osteoporosis-related phenotypes, while comprehensive, may not capture the full biological heterogeneity of skeletal disease. Cortical versus trabecular bone, bone turnover markers, and fracture outcomes could reveal additional genetic connections not detected here.

Sample size constraints affected forearm BMD analyses specifically. The null result for this skeletal site may reflect insufficient statistical power rather than genuine absence of genetic overlap.

Finally, GWAS summary statistics cannot detect rare variants, gene-gene interactions, or gene-environment interplay. The complete genetic architecture connecting schizophrenia and osteoporosis almost certainly extends beyond what current methods can capture.

The road ahead

These findings open research avenues extending far beyond the current investigation. Mendelian randomization studies could probe causal relationships between specific genes and disease outcomes. Animal models could validate whether manipulating identified pathways produces both neuropsychiatric and skeletal phenotypes.

Clinical trials testing bone-protective interventions specifically in schizophrenia populations represent another logical extension. If shared genetic mechanisms drive comorbidity, targeted prevention strategies might prove more effective than generic approaches.

The research team plans to expand analyses to additional psychiatric conditions. Do bipolar disorder, major depression, or autism spectrum disorders share similar skeletal genetic connections? Mapping the broader landscape of brain-bone genetic overlap could reveal whether schizophrenia represents a unique case or exemplifies a general pattern.

Collaborative efforts across psychiatric and musculoskeletal research communities will prove essential. The complexity uncovered here demands interdisciplinary approaches combining genomics, clinical medicine, and basic biology.

Colorado farmers plant tens of millions of corn seeds every year, nearly every one of them covered in a thin layer of insecticide.

The neonicotinoids used in the coatings protect the seed from pests in the soil and, as the crop matures, the chemical is absorbed into the plant’s tissue, where it continues to paralyze and kill insects that chomp on the crop.

Farmers say the insecticide is necessary, but growing concerns about its impact on crucial pollinator species and the wider environment are prompting a push in Colorado for more regulation of the widely used class of chemicals. Environmental advocates plan to seek a bill in the state legislature in 2026 that would limit their use in hopes of protecting pollinators and water quality.

While a draft bill has not yet been made public, the environmental groups working on it said the legislation would ban the use of neonicotinoids without prior approval by inspectors overseen by the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

“This is an existential threat to both our wildlife and our own health,” said Allison Johnson, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who is working on the policy.

But farmers say that without the insecticide, they would have to resort to more damaging pest-control practices—like treating an entire field with chemicals. If the state were to restrict the use of seeds coated with neonicotinoids—also called neonics—few sources of non-coated seeds would remain for them to buy, they said.

“A lot of farmers only get a couple of paydays a year, so it’s really important to have any insurance you can have in protecting your yields,” said Ashley House, the vice president of strategy and advocacy for the Colorado Farm Bureau. “We really see neonics and coated seeds as an insurance policy.”

Nearly universal use

Along with corn seeds, farmers often use the pesticide as a seed coating on sugar beets, wheat, barley, alfalfa and sorghum. It can also be sprayed on crops, soil or landscaping plants.

Neonics work by binding to insects’ nervous systems and paralyzing or killing them. It’s effective, but it impacts more than just pests.

Other insects—including those crucial to ecosystem health, like bees and earthworms—are also exposed to the chemicals. Because the plant absorbs the insecticide, it can be present in pollen and nectar consumed by pollinators. Even if the chemical doesn’t kill insects, it can disrupt their immune and nervous systems as well as their fertility.

The chemicals also make their way into water supplies and up the food chain, according to a 2020 overview of research about neonics compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. One 2017 report found neonics present in three-quarters of 198 honey samples collected from around the world.

“The neonicotinoid compounds occurred at levels considered safe for human consumption, but the contamination confirms the inundation of bees and their environments with these pesticides, despite some recent efforts to decrease their use,” the authors wrote in their abstract.

Scientists created the insecticide to replace others that were more harmful to people, said Lisa Blecker, an instructor at Colorado State University and administrator for the Pesticide Regulatory Education Program. Neonics pose relatively low risks for those using them, especially when applied as a seed coating, she said.

“In terms of humans, neonics are much better for the user,” Blecker said.

But environmental advocates worry about the insecticide’s impact on bees and their long-term accumulation in water and food.

“Neonics are ubiquitous in the environment, in our soils, in our drinking water and streams, which is impacting human health and our environment and wildlife,” said Joyce Kennedy, the executive director of the People and Pollinators Action Network. She’s a leader in the campaign to restrict the use of neonics.

Comprehensive data on neonics’ presence in Colorado water is limited, according to an analysis commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Water sampling conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey found measurable levels of one type of neonics in eight water bodies—more than a third of the locations tested for the substance. The locations that tested positive for neonics included Cherry Creek in Denver, the Colorado River near the Utah border, the South Platte River north of Denver and in Kersey, and in three suburban locations near Falcon in El Paso County.

At each of the sites, water samples showed concentrations of neonics above the 10-nanograms-per-liter level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency to damage aquatic ecosystems. One of the Falcon locations registered a concentration of 375 ng per liter, and Cherry Creek recorded a level of 157 ng per liter.

Data on whether the insecticide is present in groundwater is even rarer, though its presence in the South Platte River Aquifer has been well documented, according to the analysis.

Solid estimates of how much neonics are used annually in Colorado don’t exist, Blecker said.

Farmers say the chemical is extremely common—and, for some crops, they struggle to find non-treated seed.

“It’s all really treated seeds,” said Nick Colglazier, the executive director of the Colorado Corn Promotion Council.

“Like if we just gave antibiotics to everyone’

Lawmakers next year are expected to consider a bill that would ban the use of neonics and neonic-coated seeds unless farmers can demonstrate they need them to combat a specific pest problem and gain regulators’ approval.

That solution is meant to curtail the near-universal use of coated seeds and ensure that the use of the insecticide is necessary, said Henry Stiles, an advocate with Environment Colorado.

“An analogy is, it’s like if we just gave antibiotics to everyone,” he said.

Farmers, however, worry that a restriction on their ability to buy coated seeds would impact their businesses and the country’s food supply.

“That would be devastating. We wouldn’t have anywhere to go,” said Matt Mulch, who farms near Burlington and is a board member of the Colorado Corn Promotion Council.

The potential alternatives to neonic-coated seeds, he said, are either less effective or more damaging to the environment—or both. The seed coatings are more direct and less likely to leech into the water and soils than a spray applied to an entire field, he said.

“This is one of the valuable tools in our toolbox for crop protection,” Mulch said. “This is a business and we don’t waste money, so if it weren’t important, we wouldn’t spend money on it.”

Proponents of limiting the use of neonic-coated seeds said regulations will put pressure on the seed market to provide non-coated alternatives.

“The choices that are being put in front of farmers are not real choices,” said Johnson of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s essential that we take legislative action to create market conditions to create that choice.”

The policy fix under consideration—led by Democratic state Sen. Katie Wallace—closely resembles a program implemented in Quebec in 2019 that banned the use of neonics and neonic-coated seeds unless prescribed by an agronomist. Two U.S. states—Vermont and New York—followed suit and passed similar laws in the last two years, though neither has gone into effect yet.

“It’s an issue that’s bubbling up across the country,” Johnson said.

More restrictions on the sale of neonics would be a part of a critical ongoing effort in Colorado to protect pollinators, Kennedy said.

“We have to do something,” she said. “We’re headed down the wrong road. We try not to be overly catastrophic in our language, but we are on the precipice of some of these issues where, if we don’t take action, we’ll lose biodiversity.”

Colorado lawmakers in 2023 required sellers of neonic pesticides to be licensed pesticide dealers, which blocked sales by many big-box retailers like Home Depot or Walmart. The pesticides remain available, however, at the more than 400 licensed dealers across the state.

The Colorado Department of Agriculture also offers a tax credit for farmers who use seeds without neonic coatings as part of a program to promote stewardship.

The Colorado Department of Transportation has worked to sow pollinator-friendly plants, and the Department of Motor Vehicles created a license plate to raise money for pollinator conservation. In 2022, lawmakers passed a bill requiring a study of the status of the state’s native pollinators. That study prompted 2024 legislation that gave state wildlife officials the authority to manage and conserve invertebrates.

If the legislature restricts the use of neonics, it’s unclear what alternatives could take their place, said Blecker with CSU. Perfect solutions that ward off pests without risking impacts to other species don’t exist.

“You could probably find something else,” she said. “But it’s always this balance with benefit and risk—because all pesticides, by their nature, are killing, repelling and harming a living thing. So they’re all going to have a problem, basically.”

Cell-surface proteins are critical therapeutic targets and are vital to cellular communication, signaling, and homeostasis. However, developing high-affinity probes such as aptamers against these targets is hindered by low throughput and the lack of native protein conformations.

SPARK-seq platform and its capabilities

In a study published in Science on Jan. 1, a research team led by Prof. Tan Weihong and Prof. Wu Qin from Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has developed a multi-modal platform called SPARK-seq, which is a pioneering platform for large-scale, systematic study of aptamer-target interactions.

SPARK-seq integrates CRISPR-based genetic perturbation, single-cell multi-omics and sequence-based aptamer profiling. It enables high-throughput mapping of aptamers in their native cellular contexts by simultaneously profiling genetic perturbations, gene expression, and protein binding within a single cell. This creates a direct link between ligand discovery and functional genomics, allowing for the identification of binders even for low-abundance or conformation-sensitive targets.

Key findings and implications for medicine

Utilizing a multiplexed CRISPR knockout pool of 13 surface proteins and powered by the SPARTA computational pipeline, the researchers conducted an analysis of more than 8,000 single cells. They identified 5,535 aptamer sequences targeting eight distinct proteins, including PTK7, CDCP1, and the PTPR family.

The ability to resolve kinetic profiles at scale is a key breakthrough of this platform. SPARK-seq was found to preferentially enrich aptamers with slow dissociation rates, which is a vital trait for diagnostic and therapeutic efficacy. Furthermore, SPARTA’s deep learning module achieved 97% accuracy in predicting target-binding sequences and successfully generated functional variants with optimized kinetics.

By converting millions of binding events into high-dimensional sequencing data, SPARK-seq is a robust platform for aptomics, which accelerates the rational design of high-specificity molecular tools and paves the way for advanced precision medicine and targeted drug delivery.

After a strong open to the year, the public markets suffered a six-month drought that led to biotech’s tightest IPO window in years.

2025 began on an encouraging note for biopharma. In addition to the flurry of high-profile deals coming out of the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, January got last year’s IPO class off to a strong start.

Maze Therapeutics announced its intention to go public just over a week into the new year and seemingly opened the floodgates: four other biotechs followed in quick succession, one of which had already established a name for itself as a rising star in obesity and ended the year with a dramatic exit. From all indications, 2025 was shaping up to be a healthy year for IPOs, on track to meet a 2024 prediction from William Blair of 30 public market debuts.

Analysts were cautious about it, but were nevertheless hopeful.

“A robust IPO market is very important for innovative drug developers to access capital to fund later-stage (more expensive) clinical trials and to give earlier investors exit opportunities,” Michael Rachlin, Senior Managing Director at FTI Consulting’s Corporate Finance & Restructuring unit, told BioSpace in an email.

But then a drought hit, and the industry went for six months without any IPO action. Finally, LB Pharma picked things up with a successful offering in August. Overall, eight biotechs completed an IPO last year, as per BioSpace’s tally, a marked decrease from 19 in 2024, 13 in 2023 and 17 in 2022.

In hindsight, this slowdown—despite the sector already having undergone years of correction—makes sense, Rachlin said, noting that since the pandemic boom, investors have grown more judicious with their spending.

“We are likely in/entering a more discerning IPO marketplace where drug innovators with proven, later-stage assets/programs will have the necessary support to go public,” he said. Still, he continued, IPOs will remain a crucial part of a healthy biopharma industry. Overall he was optimistic.

“The development and commercialization of novel and innovative drugs will continue to be a cornerstone of health and wellness, and a robust IPO market will continue to be an important factor for drug innovators to access capital and liquidity,” Rachlin said.

In this piece, BioSpace looks back on what turned out to be a slow year for IPOs.

Maze Therapeutics

Public Market Debut Date: January 31
Proceeds: $140 million
2025 Performance: 10%

Leading 2025’s IPO class is Maze Therapeutics, which announced that it would go public in early January. The biotech, which was looking to raise money for its lead assets being tested for chronic kidney disease (CKD), closed its offering a few weeks later, counting $140 million in proceeds.

Despite being the first company to brave the IPO waters last year, the market’s reception to Maze was largely muted, according to a Jan. 31 report from Reuters. In its debut trading session, the biotech’s shares rose a meager 1% to $16.12 a pop, versus its IPO price of $16. Over the course of the entire year, however, Maze’s value shot up more than 150%.

Much of the excitement around the biotech has been driven by MZE782, an oral blocker of the amino acid transporter SLC6A19, which in September blew past Maze’s own expectations for it. In its first-in-human study, a 960-mg daily dose of MZE782 elicited a 39-fold and 55-fold increase in phenylalanine and glutamine excretion, respectively, over 24 hours—pointing to its potential to treat CKD and phenylketonuria.

Alongside this early-stage readout, Maze announced an oversubscribed private placement worth $150 million, providing capital to further develop its pipeline.

Metsera

Public Market Debut Date: Feb. 5
Proceeds: $316.2 million
2025 Performance: 54%

Arguably the biggest name that went public last year is Metsera, which in January announced its aspirations to trade on the Nasdaq Global Market—just nine months after launching. A few weeks later, Metsera closed its offering with gross proceeds of $316.2 million, higher than its initial target of $250 million.

It isn’t difficult to see why the industry is so excited for Metsera. In the months leading up to its IPO, the New York biotech released a stream of impressive data from its weight loss pipeline. In September 2024, for instance, the company’s long-acting GLP-1 injectable MET-097 lowered body weight by 7.5% at 36 days in a Phase I study. Then, days before announcing its IPO, injectable MET-097 again impressed observers with 11.3% weight reduction at 12 weeks in a mid-stage trial. Metsera planned to put much of its IPO haul behind MET-097 and take the candidate into late-stage development.

Months later, the biotech found itself in the middle of one of pharma’s most public and high-profile—not to mention messiest—bidding wars. After initially agreeing to be acquired by Pfizer for $4.9 billion, Metsera received an unsolicited rival bid from Novo Nordisk, offering $8.5 billion—a proposal that Metsera found attractive enough to call it a “superior” bid.

This set off a chain of increasingly tense exchanges between the three companies, including lawsuits from Pfizer, a provocation by Novo from the White House and a letter from the Federal Trade Commission. Ultimately, Pfizer won the tug-of-war and snagged Metsera for around $9.8 billion.

Sionna Therapeutics

Public Market Debut Date: Feb. 7
Proceeds: $191 million
2025 Performance: 56%

Just days behind Metsera is Sionna Therapeutics, which also launched its Nasdaq bid in mid-January, riding the JPM high. The IPO closed a few weeks later, with a gross haul of $191 million.

Sionna funneled the IPO raise into its cystic fibrosis pipeline, according to its prospectus filed Jan. 17. In cystic fibrosis, mutations to the CFTR protein leave it dysfunctional; Sionna is targeting the protein’s NBD1 domain. Leading Sionna’s pipeline is the NBD1 stabilizer SION-719, which the biotech is testing in combination with standard-of-care. A Phase IIa study for this regimen launched in October 2025.

Sionna is also working on SION-451, another NBD1 stabilizer. The biotech is studying SION-451 as part of two proprietary doublets, for which the first patient in a Phase I trial was dosed in August last year.

Before announcing its IPO, Sionna had raised $182 million during its series C round in March 2024. In June that same year, the company licensed two cystic fibrosis candidates from AbbVie, both of which Sionna is still advancing.

Ascentage Pharma

Public Market Debut Date: Jan. 24
Proceeds: $126.4 million
2025 Performance: 17%

Also in January, China’s Ascentage Pharma sought to debut on the U.S.’ public markets with an IPO to raise funds for its leukemia therapy lisaftoclax, according to an SEC document filed at the time.

The fundraising window was relatively short—Ascentage filed its prospectus on Jan. 21 and closed the IPO on Jan. 28—and proceeds fell below target. The company had initially eyed $133.9 million in net IPO earnings but ultimately brought in only $126.4 million.

Lisaftoclax, an orally available BCL-2 inhibitor, is Ascentage’s second lead asset that’s being developed for several hematological malignancies. In its prospectus, the biotech said that it intended to use $50 to $60 million of its IPO proceeds to advance the drug through approval for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in China and prepare for its commercial launch. This came to pass in July 2024, when Chinese regulators greenlit lisaftoclax for CLL and small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL). In the U.S., lisaftoclax is currently in late-stage development for CLL/SLL, multiple myeloma and acute myeloid leukemia.

Ascentage also earmarked a substantial chunk of its IPO haul to advance its second lead asset, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor olverembatinib, in the U.S., where it is in Phase III development for acute lymphocytic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Aardvark Therapeutics

Public Market Debut Date: Feb. 13
Proceeds: $94.2 million
2025 Performance: -6%

Closing out the industry’s early-year streak is Aardvark Therapeutics, which in late January started its journey toward the Nasdaq. Like Metsera, Aardvark was riding the industry-wide wave of optimism around obesity. Unlike its buzzier New York-based counterpart, though, Aardvark’s IPO came up short of its expectations. In mid-February, the California company closed its offering after bringing in just over $94 million, well below the $103 million it had hoped to raise.

As outlined in its SEC prospectus filed Jan. 23, Aardvark said that it would use the IPO earnings to drive the development of lead asset ARD-101, which targets certain receptors in the gut but acts differently than the commonly-exploited GLP-1 pathway. After aligning with the FDA on a late-stage design in October, the biotech dosed its first patient in December in the Phase III HERO trial testing ARD-101 for hyperphagia in Prader-Willi syndrome.

The IPO also helped Aardvark push its other asset ARD-201, which according to the biotech’s website is poised for mid-stage development in obesity. Preclinical data in August last year pointed to a roughly 19% weight reduction in mice after 30 days.

LB Pharma

Public Market Debut Date: Sept. 11
Proceeds: $285 million
2025 Performance: 15%

After the rush in January, biotech’s IPO scene entered a months-long lull, which was broken in late August by LB Pharma. The Pennsylvania-based neuropsychiatric specialist was looking to advance its antipsychotic drug candidate LB-102 into late-stage development for schizophrenia.

The biotech had originally aimed to raise some $263 million, according to its prospectus filed on Sept. 8, but it ended up with an oversized haul of $285 million after selling 19 million shares at $15 a pop.

LB planned to use the bulk of its IPO earnings to advance LB-102, according to its SEC filing at the time, particularly to push it through a Phase III schizophrenia trial and accomplish other studies to support a new drug application. Another chunk of the money would be used to develop the asset in bipolar depression.

A month after its IPO, LB came to the 38th European Congress of Neuropsychopharmacology and presented mid-stage schizophrenia data for LB-102, touting significant cognitive improvements versus placebo. The company is gearing up to launch a late-stage schizophrenia study for the asset in the first quarter of 2026, with topline data in the back half of 2027. A Phase II bipolar depression trial is also slated for the first quarter of 2026.

MapLight Therapeutics

Public Market Debut Date: Oct. 27
Proceeds: $296.3 million
2025 Performance: 10%

Following in LB Pharma’s steps is MapLight Therapeutics, which in mid-September launched its Nasdaq bid in an IPO that aimed to raise $227.3 million, with the possibility of bringing that up to $262.3 million if underwriters exercise all options. Weeks later, the California company announced that it exceeded both of its initial targets, hitting $296.3 million in gross proceeds.

MapLight will use its IPO haul to advance its current programs, according to its Sept. 19 prospectus. The biotech’s pipeline is led by ML-007C-MA, an M1/M4 muscarinic receptor agonist being trialed for Alzheimer’s disease psychosis and schizophrenia. A few days before announcing its IPO, MapLight launched a Phase II study for the asset in Alzheimer’s disease psychosis, which will deliver topline findings in the back half of 2027.

ML-007C-MA is likewise in mid-stage development for schizophrenia, with topline data expected in the latter half of 2026. MapLight is also working on ML-004, a Phase II investigational therapy for autism spectrum disorder.

Months before it went public, MapLight secured $372.5 million in its series D round in July, which at the time the company said will also primarily go toward ML-007C-MA.

Evommune

Public Market Debut Date: Nov. 6
Proceeds: $172.5 million
2025 Performance: -26%

Closing out the 2025 IPO class is Evommune, which launched its offering in late October amid the federal shutdown, looking to raise from $140 million to $160 million.

Because the government was locked down at the time, Evommune relied on Section 8(a) of the Securities Act to see its IPO through to completion. This statute provides that offerings take effect not shorter than 20 days after a filing is made. That came to pass a few days later, with Evommune debuting Nov. 6 on the New York Stock Exchange with $172.5 million in gross proceeds.

The primary purpose of Evommune’s IPO was to “increase our financial flexibility,” according to its Oct. 17 prospectus. The money will also help move along the company’s most advanced asset, EVO756, an oral small-molecule blocker of the MRGPRX2 receptor found on peripheral neurons and immune cells. This mechanism, according to Evommune’s website, addresses inflammatory dysfunction that drives several diseases.

A month before its IPO, Evommune reported Phase II data for EVO756 in chronic inducible urticaria, touting a 93% clinical response rate at four weeks and a rapid onset of improvements. Two Phase IIb readouts in chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic dermatitis are expected next year.

Only a handful of the top pharmas have signed Most Favored Nation drug pricing deals with the White House, while smaller biotechs continue to hang in limbo.

Just because a handful of Big Pharmas have signed drug pricing agreements with the White House doesn’t mean the Most Favored Nation battle is over. Experts say that, despite the headline deals, drug pricing policy is set to dog pharma into the new year.

“The biopharma world is adapting to an environment with a lot more policy and geopolitical uncertainty than we’ve had in the past,” Greg Graves, senior partner for McKinsey’s life sciences practice, told BioSpace. “We have new sources of uncertainty that we’re having to absorb beyond the traditional commercial potential, technical risk, regulatory risks.”

Graves said that MFN drug pricing defined 2025—with a little side of tariff uncertainty as the president used the threat of import taxes to push pharmas into lowering prices.

While all of these policy issues were happening, Graves said, pharmas still had to run the everyday business—managing upcoming loss of exclusivity events, launch strategies, delivering on the portfolio and more. MFN was a bolt of lightning through pharma C-suites, particularly putting pressure on the CEO.

“I don’t think any one person except the CEO can solve the MFN question or at least figure out how you’re going to address it,” Graves said.

Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly reached agreements with the White House in the fall. Right before Christmas, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi also signed on.

Among the many companies that haven’t yet is Biogen. CEO Chris Viehbacher recently told Stifel that the MFN debate has not impacted his company so far and that he believes, if it does, it would affect only new product launches, not existing items in the company’s portfolio.

“Mr. Viehbacher does believe the worst has passed,” Stifel wrote, after a meeting with the executive. “For the industry though, the looming threat of MFN if this does persist may create more thought on how to price new drugs in different markets in the world.”

Early MFN Deals Ease Overhang Going Into 2026

When the specter of MFN was first raised by President Donald Trump in the spring, the industry cried out while analysts predicted doom and gloom. CEOs such as AstraZeneca’s Pascal Soriot used their earnings call platform to suggest that other nations need to pay more. This message seemed to work on Trump. By the end of the year, he had secured a deal that will see the U.K. pay more for innovative medicines.

Indeed, for U.S. biopharmas, the worst-case scenario did not come to pass, William Blair wrote in a year-end outlook. “We believe investors are beginning to view the existential risks to the industry as unlikely to materialize, and believe next year is setting up to be a better year than this year for the first time in several years,” the firm said.

Speaking to investors on Tuesday, Pfizer executives celebrated the signing of the MFN agreement. “It relieves a significant headwind and allows us to be much more planful and certain about the environment in which we’ll operate in,” CFO Dave Denton said.

Industry analysts said that Pfizer managed to negotiate a deal with limited impact, as many of the drugs within the agreement were already declining in price or headed for patent cliffs. CEO Albert Bourla, however, stressed during the guidance call that the impact of the MFN agreement is not “immaterial.”

“I think you should assume there is an impact as we always said,” Bourla insisted. The New York pharma lowered its 2026 revenue guidance last week to $62.5 billion, missing analyst consensus.

For all the companies that have yet to sign on, the impact will be felt at least in terms of time. They will need to go through the same process that Pfizer has to factor in the impacts and explain to investors how any pricing changes will impact earnings, Graves said.

“We’re still in the early innings of the dealmaking,” Graves said. Not even half of the top pharmas have signed a deal yet, he noted. Biotech hasn’t even begun.

Still, Guggenheim Securities sees the events of 2025 as laying the groundwork for a more stable 2026. The pharma sector climbed above the S&P 500 year-to-date performance index after pharmas signed a clutch of MFN deals, suggesting that investors are breathing a sigh of relief.

This year, “peak uncertainty in drug pricing limited confidence in pharma earnings,” Guggenheim noted. Also factoring in was chaos at the nation’s health agencies, including controversial leadership picks, fluctuating policy and the potential for drug approval delays at the FDA.

But going into the New Year, things are looking up, the firm continued. “We believe the industry’s progress in 2025 lays a solid foundation for a return to fundamental share appreciation in 2026 with a focus on sales and earnings growth and clinical execution, bolstered by M&A to address major 2026-2032 patent cliffs.”

Open Questions for Biopharma as MFN Threat Continues

One overhang heading into 2026 is that the direct-to-consumer TrumpRx platform is set to launch, which is when these deals will come into effect.

“Despite headline price reductions, it remains uncertain whether the TrumpRx model will meaningfully lower patient out-of-pocket cost, although the benefit to pharma companies is clear as they avoid the potential for heavy import tariffs,” PitchBook wrote in a 2026 preview.

How MFN might impact biotechs is another question mark right now. The Trump administration has focused on Big Pharmas, leaving smaller companies out of the picture—for now. Graves said this is a big risk for biotech heading into 2026.

“A lot of the dynamics right now are favoring larger companies,” Graves said. Big Pharmas have much greater leeway to make tough calls, with lots of capital on hand to absorb these impacts. If a Big Pharma needs to defer a launch, they can do that. For biotechs, a single launch is often a make-or-break event.

Biogen’s Viehbacher told Stifel much the same. He said that he has spent time on Capitol Hill speaking to members of Congress and does not believe they intend to codify something like MFN into law. If they did, that could force biotechs such as Biogen to address it, but Viehbacher “believes that biotech has a lot of support from Congress,” Stifel wrote.

Where smaller biotechs could be troubled is in the continued FDA disruptions, Viehbacher said, because these companies require more interactions with the FDA to get their drugs across the finish line.

Biotechs and investment firms are keenly aware of the policy issues that have been impacting their pharma peers. A recent survey by ICON Global of biotech leaders, influencers and funders worldwide found that 66% believe changing regulatory requirements would impact their organizations in 2025, compared to 56% in 2023. Geopolitical uncertainty rose as a key concern to 53% for the year, compared to just 26% two years before.

“Regulatory, policy and tariff changes will undoubtedly impact biotechs worldwide,” the ICON survey stated. “Whether those impacts will be positive or negative remains to be seen and will depend on the individual companies’ abilities to maximize opportunities and mitigate threats.”