Welcome to Partnology’s Biotech Leader Spotlight Series, where we highlight the remarkable accomplishments and visionary leadership of biotech industry pioneers. This series is about showcasing the groundbreaking strides made by exceptional leaders who have transformed scientific possibilities into tangible realities. Through insightful interviews, we invite you to join us in following the inspiring journeys of these executives who continue to shape the landscape of the biotech industry. This week we are recognizing:
Dr. Chorom Pak is the founder and CEO of Lynx Biosciences, Inc. (LynxBio), where she leads the commercialization of Lynx Rufus™, a multi-omic microfluidic platform developed while earning her PhD in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. The technology was born out of an interdisciplinary collaboration between cancer biologists, physicians, biomedical engineers, physicists, and biostatisticians to generate data-driven, transformative insights into primary cancer biology. LynxBio has forged strategic partnerships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, focusing on the discovery and development of next-generation immunotherapeutics. Prior to establishing LynxBio, Dr. Pak was the clinical and R&D lead at Cellectar Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLRB), where she co-developed a targeted radiotherapeutic against hematological malignancies and successfully advanced it to Phase 2 clinical trials. Dr. Pak was awarded the Biocom Catalyst Award, holds fifteen patents, and has over 15 years of experience in oncology and multi-omic platforms.
You transitioned from academic research to co-founding LynxBio and now also co-founding Alkyon Therapeutics – what motivated you to take the leap into entrepreneurship (twice) and what advice would you give to others wanting to do the same?
Founding a company felt like the only viable way to translate our discoveries into meaningful impact for patients. Academia produces an incredible amount of valuable research, but bridging the gap between discovery and real-world application often requires commercialization. That was the driving reason behind founding LynxBio: to make our discoveries actionable and clinically relevant.
What initially drew me to academia was the autonomy to build a team, pursue meaningful research, and create something from the ground up. That spirit is actually very similar to entrepreneurship. Our first technology was born in that academic environment. Through our collaboration with the cancer center, we had direct access to patient samples and the ability to collaborate closely across disciplines, particularly between cancer biology and microfluidic engineering. That kind of synergy was foundational to what became LynxBio.
More recently, I co-founded Alkyon Therapeutics, a targeted radiotherapeutics company that is still operating in stealth. Alkyon was designed to advance therapeutic programs built upon a de novo target that I first discovered during my PhD research, which is implicated in multiple solid and hematologic malignancies. The scientific foundation is distinct from LynxBio’s platform, but the experience of building LynxBio helped shape how we structured Alkyon. We wanted to keep LynxBio focused on its multi-omic discovery platform while allowing Alkyon to pursue therapeutic development independently. This approach avoided unnecessary dilution for LynxBio’s shareholders while creating a clear, focused identity for Alkyon as a therapeutics company.
Radiotherapeutics is an especially exciting area right now. Early treatments such as Bexxar and Zevalin demonstrated strong efficacy but were limited by a disconnect between oncology and radiology. That gap has since been bridged, and the success of therapies such as Pluvicto and Lutathera has shown that targeted radiotherapy can be both clinically powerful and commercially viable. The field is now entering a new phase focused on discovering novel targets, developing next-generation isotopes, and expanding therapeutic modalities. It is an area where deeper biological insight and precision engineering are converging to redefine what targeted radiotherapy can accomplish.
At the end of the day, you should not start a company because the title or idea of being a founder sounds appealing. Entrepreneurship is often romanticized, but in reality it is demanding and deeply personal. You do it because there is a problem you cannot ignore and you are willing to dedicate yourself fully to solving it. For me, becoming an entrepreneur was not a leap of faith but rather an inevitable step to make sure our science reaches patients.
Tell me more about LynxBio – what differentiates your approach from other multi-omics platforms being developed?
There are many multi-omic platforms, but not all are designed to capture dynamic and functional biology. Many platforms generate massive static datasets that reveal correlations but not causation. They tell you what is there, not necessarily how it behaves or why.
LynxBio was built to focus on function first. Our platform began as a tumor-on-a-chip for hematologic cancers and has since expanded into solid tumors and autoimmune disorders. We use patient-derived samples to recreate the tumor or tissue microenvironment at a miniaturized scale, not only to observe it but also to perturb it and measure how it responds. This allows us to obtain multidimensional datasets from the same sample, integrating high-content imaging, soluble proteomics, and single-cell sequencing.
Our imaging readouts provide spatial and temporal information about how cells move, interact, and change over time. We then complement that with proteomic and genomic data to reveal the mechanisms behind those changes. Together, these layers create a systems-level view of functional biology that static sequencing alone cannot achieve.
The platform is highly modular and adaptable. We have extended it into models for autoimmune and toxicology applications, including a synovium-on-a-chip for rheumatoid arthritis, a lung airway-on-a-chip that simulates breathing with an air-liquid interface and stretch, and several organ-on-a-chip models for heart, liver, and lung toxicity testing. Each model is designed for physiological relevance, which makes the data we generate more predictive and translatable.
It is rewarding to see how these models can bring clinical insights closer to reality. The FDA has also released a roadmap supporting the adoption of patient-based in vitro platforms to reduce reliance on animal testing. While we are not yet fully replacing in vivo models, the regulatory support for this approach is a clear sign of where the field is heading.
LynxBio has secured partnerships with major pharmaceutical companies – how do you think small biotechs can best position themselves to attract collaborations with large pharma?
Partnerships with pharmaceutical companies can be transformative for small biotechs. They provide non-dilutive funding, validate your technology, and open doors to broader opportunities. The key is to be very clear about what you do better than anyone else and to back it up with data.
When you first start out, it is tempting to present your technology broadly and ask potential partners what they would like to do with it. That approach rarely works because it puts the burden on them to define your value. Instead, take the time to understand their specific challenges and position your technology as a direct solution to a gap they cannot fill internally.
That mindset was critical for us. Our first major collaboration was with J&J Oncology, and it came about because we could solve a problem they could not address in-house. Working with patient-derived samples internally was not as feasible for them, since each sample yields a limited amount of material and required multiple replicate experiments. Our platform allowed us to generate multiple readouts from the same cells, dramatically increasing the amount of usable data from each patient sample. Proving that we could do what they could not made the collaboration both credible and productive.
My advice is to identify the gap only you can fill and demonstrate your capability clearly. Once you show that you can solve a specific problem for a partner, collaboration becomes a natural next step. The best partnerships are built not on technology for technology’s sake, but on the value it creates.
Immunotherapeutics is one of the most competitive areas in biotech. Where do you see the biggest gaps or white space that companies should be paying attention to in this space?
Immunotherapy continues to evolve in waves, but the current shift is moving from validating modalities to uncovering new biology. The field today is heavily focused on e.g. modalities such as T cell engagers and checkpoint inhibitors. These therapies have proven effective, but there is still room to explore new targets and mechanisms.
Now that the manufacturing of complex biologics like bispecific antibodies is more established, the focus is moving toward better target selection and functional validation. We are seeing an increase in bispecifics and tri-specific antibodies that target both cancer cells and components of the tumor microenvironment, such as PD-1 and VEGF combinations.
One major opportunity lies in addressing the extracellular matrix, which serves as both a physical and immunologic barrier in solid tumors. Even the most potent antibodies can fail if they cannot reach their target. Exploring ECM-associated targets influencing both structure and immune accessibility could lead to more effective therapies.
Another promising direction is the convergence of oncology and autoimmunity. Many immune pathways overlap between the two, but autoimmune diseases require therapies that are safe and effective for chronic use. Adapting biologics originally developed for cancer to treat autoimmune diseases presents exciting potential for long-term therapeutic innovation.
Overall, the next phase of immunotherapy will be defined not only by engineering new modalities but also by deepening our understanding of the biology that underlies them.
As a patent holder with deep experience in oncology, how do you see intellectual property strategy evolving for platform-based biotech companies?
In the past, many companies focused on filing the broadest patent possible, covering everything related to their technology. Today, a more strategic and layered approach is needed.
The first layer should always protect the enabling platform itself, but equally important are the application-specific patents that cover what the platform enables. In other words, it is not enough to protect the tool; you should also protect the most valuable outcomes it produces.
I once read an analogy that stuck with me: don’t just patent the fishing rod—patent the best fish you can catch with it. This approach both defends your platform and makes it more attractive to investors. It also provides flexibility for downstream strategies, like partnerships or spin-outs. In short, you want to protect not only the critical tool you’ve developed but also the value it generates at the end of the day.
