The first GPCR Pharmacology AMA of 2026 takes place February 26 at 1 PM EST. Join Terry’s Corner to discuss receptor theory, biased signaling, and mechanistic interpretation in drug discovery.

👉 In early-stage biotech, activity often feels like strategy. The platform is advancing, multiple indications are progressing, a grant application is underway, and early partnership conversations are taking shape. At the same time, the team is preparing for biotech fundraising. On the surface, this looks like a strength. There is movement across the board. Each initiative has logic behind it. Each program appears to increase optionality and reduce risk. 👉 This is where str

GPCRs are one of the most important families of therapeutic targets in the pharmaceutical industry. They are involved in several pathologies, ranging from neurological, oncological, degenerative, metabolic, immunological… around a third of the drugs in clinical use are GPCR ligands

Integrated GPCR drug discovery demands more than isolated experiments. It requires alignment across chemistry, modeling, pharmacology, and translational strategy. This week, we introduce the newly structured Dr. GPCR University — ten reformatted masterclasses now fully integrated into Premium — and what that means for discovery teams.

Dr. GPCR and Eurofins DiscoverX announce a strategic partnership to accelerate GPCR drug discovery by expanding access to validated, industry-standard cell-based assay platforms supporting pharmacological characterization, screening, and regulatory-compliant development.

Drug discovery does not move in fixed conclusions. As datasets expand and systems are tested under new conditions, interpretations often require adjustment. What initially appears mechanistically clear can become more nuanced when additional experiments are layered in.

👉 Most biotech founders  do not realize they are in trouble when the money runs out. By then, the situation is already decided. 👉 The real issue begins earlier, at a point where the company is still operating, the science is progressing, and milestones are being met. On paper, things look fine. In reality, something more subtle starts to shift. 👉 Decision-making changes. Plans that once felt flexible start to feel constrained. Conversations move from options to assumption

The Dr. GPCR University has undergone a structural redesign. This is a focused soft launch—prioritizing usability, clarity, and strategic navigation. You can now search courses by level, topic, or instructor. Each course page includes a short trailer, defined learning outcomes, and explicit take-home messages. Full course videos stream directly from the platform, and downloadable resources are available in one place.

👉 Strong biotech startups do not fail because the science is weak or the team is incapable. They fail when the pressure of fundraising slowly starts reshaping how decisions are made , long before anyone notices that strategy has begun to drift. In early-stage biotech, fundraising rarely feels like a strategic threat. It feels like a necessary distraction. Founders tell themselves that certain compromises are temporary, that clarity will return after the round closes. 👉 What

In early-stage drug discovery, one miscalculated liability can bring an otherwise promising scaffold to a complete halt. Rushing past early safety signals, especially those emerging from cytotoxicity or off-target activities, risks catastrophic consequences for both patient safety and project resources.

If you’ve felt the pace of GPCR research accelerating—and the signal getting harder to separate from the noise—you’re not alone.This week marks the start of a new era for the Dr. GPCR Ecosystem: sharper programming, deeper expertise, and renewed momentum across everything we publish and build.After a brief pause over the holidays, we’re back in full force—designed to help you make better scientific and strategic decisions, faster.

Most biotech founders assume that failure comes from making the wrong call. A flawed experiment. A bad hire. A missed partnership. 👉 Biotech startup failure is usually imagined as a moment where something clearly breaks. In reality, many biotech startups drift into trouble without ever making a single decision that looks wrong at the time. Progress continues. Data improves. Teams stay busy. And yet, momentum slowly fades. 👉 This is what makes biotech startup failure so diff

Binding affinity appears straightforward: add ligand, measure signal, fit a curve. Yet discovery teams routinely lose time and misallocate resources because the underlying biology behaves nothing like the idealized systems we learned in textbooks. GPCRs couple, decouple, isomerize, deplete tracers, and shift apparent affinity depending on stoichiometry and time. The result is a recurring pattern across programs—clean data that is not actually telling the truth. Orthosteric bi

👉 Most biotech founders experience that external conversations consume more energy than they should . Investor calls take too long before reaching substance. Partner discussions sound positive but rarely lead to concrete next steps. Business development conversations feel inconsistent, even when the company and the science have not changed. 👉 The natural reaction is to improve communication. Founders refine their pitch, rewrite slides, and rehearse explanations. Yet better

👉 Most founders look back at the end of the year and try to make sense of the results. They analyze numbers, milestones, missed goals, and unexpected outcomes. 👉 It feels logical to evaluate success where it is most visible . Yet that moment is usually the worst place to look for answers. What if the most important part of the year already passed long before those results showed up? 👉 What if the real leverage was never in the metrics but in the choices made when everythi

👉 In early-stage biotech , uncertainty is not an exception. It is the environment. The science evolves, assumptions break, and timelines shift quietly rather than dramatically. Most founders are prepared for this on a technical level. What they are less prepared for is how much this uncertainty tests the team. Early hiring decisions are usually made around skills, experience, and domain expertise. That feels logical. 👉 Complex biology seems to demand strong credentials.  Bu

Biotech startups rarely fail all at once. They fail while everyone is still working hard. Experiments continue. Meetings happen. Progress is reported. Yet alignment fades and decisions lose clarity. This is not a motivation problem. It is structural. When complexity grows faster than strategy, biotech companies drift. Survival depends less on science and more on whether clarity scales with complexity.

👉 Why has intellectual property become a first-order fundraising signal? Biotech fundraising has undergone a subtle yet significant shift. Capital still exists, but investors are making decisions earlier and filtering more carefully . As a result, intellectual property is no longer something that comes up late in the process. 👉 It has become an early signal of whether a biotech company is fundable at all. This shift does not mean founders need more patents or heavier legal

Founders love the idea that a new year, or a new quarter, will reset the company. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: 👉 Your biotech is already running on an operating cadence you didn’t consciously design. And that cadence is shaping everything: timelines, decisions, investor calls, BD traction, internal focus. Most CEOs think they’re steering the strategy. 👉 In reality, their operating cadence is steering them. And until you see it, you can’t change it. Operating cadence

As scientists, we know curves don’t equal clarity. As 2025 comes to a close, this final edition of Weekly News focuses on how GPCR binding affinity experiments are interpreted—and how those interpretations quietly shape SAR, lead selection, and development timelines long before anyone notices. The goal isn’t more data. It’s cleaner interpretation. And that’s exactly what carries strong discovery programs into 2026.

The Quiet Drift You Don’t Feel Until It’s Too Late 👉 Every early-stage biotech reaches a moment where the science finally starts clicking… and the company quietly stops doing anything else. BD conversations stay warm but motionless. Investor updates become thinner. Internal meetings slowly morph into scientific colloquia instead of decision-making forums. 👉 The uncomfortable truth: your company is doing a lot of science and very little building. No drama. No blow-ups.Just

Binding affinity appears straightforward: add ligand, measure signal, fit a curve. Yet discovery teams routinely lose time and misallocate resources because the underlying biology behaves nothing like the idealized systems we learned in textbooks. GPCRs couple, decouple, isomerize, deplete tracers, and shift apparent affinity depending on stoichiometry and time. The result is a recurring pattern across programs—clean data that is not actually telling the truth. Orthosteric bi

Every scientist has stood in a crowded conference room rehearsing a question they’re too nervous to ask. The expert they admire is right there, but the fear of sounding unprepared wins.Yet one well-timed question can unlock clarity, accelerate a stalled project, or even spark a collaboration. In this episode, JB pulls the curtain back on the mindset and tactics he’s used for years—including the exact line that makes intimidating conversations surprisingly easy. It’s a

Before the islet lit up, the collaboration wasn’t even aimed at imaging. Johannes “JB” Broichhagen trained as a synthetic chemist — someone who trusted carbon–carbon bonds far more than live-cell behavior. Yet curiosity and chemistry pulled him into the world of GLP-1R, pancreatic β-cells, and the biological questions David Hodson had been exploring for years. The call from David — the glowing islet — created a pivot the team couldn’t ignore. A fluorescent peptide probe