Tell us about Kahimmune Therapeutics. How does your Kahinomics™ platform differ from traditional approaches in cancer immunotherapy?
Kahimmune is built on more than 15 years of research in immunology carried out by our scientific co‑founder Dr. Sebastien Apcher at Gustave Roussy. His work uncovered a new way that antigenic peptides are presented on the surface of cancer cells.
Classically, we look for neoantigens arising from mutations in the protein‑coding, or “coding,” genome. Our work shows that many highly interesting peptides actually come from non‑canonical translation events in what people used to call the “junk” or “dark” genome—non‑coding regions, introns, and pre‑spliced mRNA.
By systematically exploring this space, Kahinomics™ gives us access to a much deeper and more diverse repertoire of neoantigens than traditional approaches ever see. That is the foundation of Kahimmune.
And what about Kahigens™—your neoantigens? How do they enable safer, tumor‑specific cancer therapeutics compared with more standard tumor‑specific approaches?
Because of the way we discover them, Kahigens™ are truly tumor‑specific. They are presented only on cancer cells that express these non‑canonical peptides, and are not presented on healthy tissues.
In practice, this means that when we prime CD8 T cells against Kahigens, these T cells recognize and kill only the tumor cells that show those antigens. Healthy cells do not present them, so they are spared.
This very tight specificity is what makes the neoantigen therapeutics potentially safer: we aim to trigger a strong, durable immune response with minimal off‑tumor toxicity. We also see promising signals that these epitopes induce long‑lived memory responses, which is crucial for preventing relapse.
You previously founded Nosopharm in antimicrobial resistance. What gaps in immuno‑oncology led you to spin out Kahimmune from Gustave Roussy and SATT Paris‑Saclay?
During my time at Nosopharm, I was following the literature very closely, especially on RNA therapeutics and neoantigen. Recent data—for example from companies like BioNTech—showed that individualized mRNA therapies could deliver dramatic clinical signals in certain cancers when combined with checkpoint inhibitors.
But those first‑generation neoantigen therapies mostly use neoantigens from the coding genome, about 2% of our DNA. We asked: what if we tapped into the other 98%—the dark genome? We saw that this space contains shared neoantigens across patients with the same cancer type. That opens the door to “off‑the‑shelf” mRNA therapeutics that can still be highly specific but do not need full personalization for each patient.
This combination of strong science, potential to improve existing immunotherapies, and a more scalable product concept convinced me it was time to launch Kahimmune as a spin‑off with Gustave Roussy and SATT Paris‑Saclay.
You spent 15 years at Nosopharm raising capital, building partnerships, and advancing programs. How has that experience shaped Kahimmune’s early IP and team strategy?
Nosopharm taught me some hard but invaluable lessons. First, if you want to be a credible partner for pharma, your assets must fit into their combination strategies and commercial portfolios. At Kahimmune we therefore design from day one for synergy with established therapies—checkpoint inhibitors, standard of care, and so on—rather than imagining we will replace everything.
Second, I learned what robust IP looks like from a pharma perspective: how to protect platforms, specific antigens, and combinations in ways that make a future deal truly attractive. That experience guides how we build and layer our patents today.
Third, I know which investors to approach at which stage, and how to “calibrate” the story and the data package for them. And finally, after challenging recruitment cycles at Nosopharm, I’m very conscious that talent and culture can make or break a biotech. I’m investing a lot of energy into building the right early team at Kahimmune.
You’re initially focusing on colorectal and pancreatic cancers with a shared mRNA neoantigen therapy program. Why those indications, and what early data suggest synergy with existing therapies?
The underlying research was developed at Gustave Roussy, one of the leading cancer centers in Europe, using colorectal cancer as a primary model. There are medical need reasons: colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second cause of cancer death globally. Historically, many immunotherapies—like checkpoint inhibitors—were first developed and tested in colorectal models, so there’s a rich scientific and clinical context.
From there, we extended to pancreatic cancer, which sadly carries one of the highest burdens and poorest prognoses. We now see shared neoantigens—our Kahigens—across patient samples in both colorectal and pancreatic tumors. Preclinical data suggest that neoantigen therapies based on these shared epitopes can boost responses when combined with existing immunotherapies. Our ambition is to make these combinations more effective while remaining logistically feasible and more affordable than fully personalized approaches.
On a more personal note — what drives you?
Biotech is an uncertain adventure, but that’s also what makes it so exciting. What truly drives me is turning fundamental science into real medical applications and doing that with a team of committed, diverse people. I love building teams, aligning different personalities and mindsets around a shared mission, and seeing that collaboration work in practice.
And of course, impact matters. At Nosopharm I worked on antimicrobial resistance; now at Kahimmune I’m addressing cancer. I’m at an age where more and more friends, relatives, people I care about are touched by cancer. That makes the work deeply personal.
Transitioning from anti‑infectives to immuno‑oncology is a big shift. What have been the biggest technical or regulatory hurdles so far?
The contrasts are striking. In anti‑infectives, your preclinical models are usually quite predictive: if you show strong efficacy in infection models, your chance of clinical success is reasonably high. But you need to deliver very high daily doses—sometimes multigrams per day—so CMC and manufacturing become major challenges. Producing kilogram‑scale batches for trials is non‑trivial.
In oncology, it’s almost the opposite. Preclinical tumor models are less predictive and inherently more variable, so demonstrating clear efficacy is harder. But the therapeutic doses of mRNA therapeutics or biologics can be in the microgram to milligram range per patient, which reduces some of the manufacturing burden.
Regulatorily, oncology pathways and endpoints are different from infectious disease, and the field is much more crowded. The good news is that there is capital, expertise, and precedent in oncology that antimicrobial resistance sadly lacked. I wouldn’t call oncology “easy”—far from it—but at least there is an ecosystem and success stories to learn from.
Who or what has shaped you most as a founder?
Scientifically, my PhD supervisor Jean‑Paul Léonetti had a huge influence. He combined strong microbiology expertise with the mindset of a biotech entrepreneur—he was involved in several company creations. He was always available for questions and showed me what supportive, demanding leadership looks like.
Beyond that, my parents and family, and some life events, have shaped my appetite for difficult challenges. I’ve often been slightly afraid of big steps—doing a PhD, spending a year in Mexico during my studies, founding companies—but I tend to say, “Yes, it’s hard… and that’s exactly why I should do it.” The lows are real, but the highs are incredibly rewarding. Living the story from the inside, rather than just hearing the storytelling from outside, is something I truly enjoy.
How do you envision Kahimmune’s combination strategies transforming outcomes for high‑burden cancers like pancreatic tumors?
Early data from others—for instance the BioNTech program you mentioned—already show that neoantigen therapies can meaningfully improve outcomes when added to checkpoint inhibitors. Our goal is to match or surpass those benefits by using shared Kahigens from the dark genome, delivered as off‑the‑shelf mRNA therapies.
If we succeed, we could offer combination regimens that are more accessible and affordable, with simpler logistics for hospitals and for patients. For diseases like pancreatic cancer, where every incremental gain matters, this could make a real difference in who actually gets treated—and how well they respond.
Looking ahead, what kinds of partnerships or expansions excite you most as you scale Kahimmune?
Fundraising is of course important, but what truly excites me is securing strong industrial partners—pharma or larger biotech companies who can bring our compounds all the way to patients. I don’t pretend that Kahimmune alone will cure cancer. But if even one drug from our pipeline reaches patients and improves their lives, that will be extraordinary.
To achieve that, we need partners with development, regulatory, and commercial muscle. That’s the kind of collaboration I’m most eager to build in the coming years.
You’ve been in the industry for a long time. What key learnings would you share with readers who are building the next generation of biotechs?
First, everything has become more complex and more expensive. When I started, you could bring a candidate to the clinic with a few million euros; today you often need tens of millions just to reach the same point. There is also an overwhelming amount of data. AI helps, but it doesn’t replace the judgement that comes from experience.
Second, don’t underestimate the importance of industrial know‑how. In AMR we saw a whole generation of big‑pharma expertise disappear when programs were shut down. Biotech teams then had to rediscover how to design and execute development plans almost from scratch. We must avoid repeating that in new areas.
Finally, the global landscape is shifting. The rise of China, evolving US and EU strategies—these will change which markets drive development decisions. Navigating that will be challenging, but it also creates new opportunities. In the end, the scientific and medical stakes are far more important than any single market, and that perspective keeps me motivated.
