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:
Cyril De Colle is the Co-founder & Chief Scientific Officer at Neurogastrx, a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company developing products for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. Cyril has more than 20 years of drug development experience, having led multiple programs from IND submission to late-stage clinical development. Before Neurogastrx, Cyril led the division at Kinemed responsible for advising global and venture-backed pharmaceutical companies on neuroscience drug development programs. Prior to Kinemed, he led clinical development programs targeting neurological disorders at Jazz Pharmaceuticals and served as a senior research scientist at Amgen and Roche Pharmaceuticals. These experiences led him to explore the role of the enteric nervous system in GI conditions, such as gastroparesis, the focus of Neurogastrx’s NG-101 development program. Cyril has a M.S. in Pharmacology and a PhD in Neuroscience from the University of Montpellier in France.
What inspired you to start Neurogastrx, and what unmet needs in gastrointestinal disorders did you see as most pressing at the time?
My background at the time was really in neurology and psychiatry, and I was working as a consultant when I was introduced to the head of gastroenterology at Stanford. He completely opened up my world to gastroenterology—especially neuro-gastroenterology—and the underlying science. He was deeply passionate about functional gastrointestinal disorders, which are conditions without an identifiable anatomical change, yet patients suffer from significant symptoms.
Take functional dyspepsia for example: chronic nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain—very common symptoms that many people experience daily. Yet in the United States, we have virtually no effective treatments for these types of conditions.
One condition he was particularly focused on is gastroparesis, a paralysis of the stomach that occurs for unknown reasons and affects women disproportionately—about 80% of patients. These individuals experience daily nausea and vomiting, often unable to tolerate a full meal. They try to eat small amounts, but still feel nauseated and often vomit. It’s a debilitating condition, and many patients become homebound because they can’t predict when their symptoms will strike and don’t want to experience them in public. Again, there are essentially no effective treatments in the U.S.
The head of gastroenterology—Dr. J. Pasricha—had an idea: if we couldn’t cure the disease because we still don’t fully understand its cause, perhaps we could at least treat its most burdensome symptoms. The mechanism he proposed targeting was already well understood: the dopamine D2 receptor. The problem is that the only drug available in the U.S., metoclopramide (Reglan), crosses the blood-brain barrier, acts like an antipsychotic, and causes numerous central nervous system side effects.
The idea, then, was to develop a dopamine D2 antagonist restricted to the periphery—able to relieve nausea and vomiting without the CNS toxicity. That concept ultimately became the foundation for Neurogastrx. That was the original spark behind the company.
As both Founder and CSO, what were the most pivotal moments in taking Neurogastrx from an idea to a clinical-stage company?
There were many challenges, of course. When I made the decision to focus on building Neurogastrx and take it from concept to product, the first major hurdle was funding. For years—nearly five, in fact—I bootstrapped and raised small amounts from friends, family, and a few angel investors. During that time, I had to assemble everything larger investors, particularly VCs, would expect: credible datasets, a clear scientific rationale, and strong intellectual property. Securing patents and establishing real protection around the molecule was essential.
But the most critical piece—and the one I underestimated—was the regulatory pathway. The FDA had not yet issued guidance for drug development in gastroparesis, and that was a major red flag for investors. They wanted clarity, and until that existed, it was difficult to get anyone to commit.
Eventually, all the pieces came together. We had compelling data, solid IP with issued patents, and the FDA finally released guidance for gastroparesis drug development. That was the pivotal turning point. Shortly after, I raised our Series A—$45 million—from highly respected VC firms. That marked the real beginning. From there, it was heads down: execute, move through each stage of R&D, and ultimately advance the product into Phase 2.
How have you approached building and leading scientific and clinical teams across such a wide R&D continuum—from discovery to pivotal studies?
Our approach started with one of the most important decisions: finding the right CEO. I didn’t want to serve as CEO myself—I wanted to stay focused on the science—so we searched for and ultimately hired an excellent leader based in Boston. As a result, we relocated the company there. Boston also had a strong pool of gastrointestinal experts, many of whom came from Ironwood, and several were available as the company grew.
Once we had our CEO in place, we hired a small group of key internal employees. Beyond that, we leaned heavily on consultants because of the wide range of specialized needs across the early stages of development—chemistry, non-clinical studies, ADME/PK, and more. We engaged seasoned experts who had spent long careers in pharma and biotech and who brought deep expertise in their respective domains.
This model worked extremely well. Many consultants were on retainer and operated almost like full-time team members, fully dedicated to Neurogastrx. And when a particular phase was complete, it was easy to transition off that expertise and move into the next stage. Ultimately, that structure became a core part of the company’s DNA: a small, essential internal team supported by highly specialized external experts.
What makes gastrointestinal drug development particularly challenging—or exciting—compared to the neurology and psychiatry programs you’ve led in the past?
Well, I think the space is mostly challenging. It’s not viewed as glamorous the way psychiatry or neurology often are. But the reality is that gastrointestinal disorders affect a huge portion of the population globally, including in the U.S., where 15–20% of people experience severe GI symptoms at some point. And yet, there are very few effective treatments.
Because of that gap, gastroenterologists end up trying almost anything—using drugs approved for entirely different conditions and hoping they help. But most of these approaches aren’t backed by strong clinical data, and there’s little understanding of how effective or safe they really are for GI disorders.
When you’re trying to build a startup in this space, that becomes a major challenge. VCs evaluate the likelihood of an exit—whether through acquisition or partnership with big pharma or big biotech—and there’s almost no industry interest in functional gastroenterology. Companies working in inflammatory GI diseases like Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis have seen a lot of investment and activity, but functional GI disorders are largely ignored.
That lack of commercial interest makes it incredibly difficult to gain traction, raise capital, and build momentum in this field.
Having advised VC-backed startups before founding your own, how do you think investors’ perspectives on risk and innovation have evolved in biotech?
I think over the past decade, investors have become less focused on true innovation and more focused on securing large returns or big exits. As a result, they’re concentrating their capital into fewer companies, but writing much larger checks. That dynamic makes it easier for a select few to raise significant rounds, but far more difficult for the majority of companies to access funding.
With AI increasingly influencing drug discovery, how do you see computational or data-driven approaches fitting into small-molecule R&D in the next few years?
AI is now touching nearly every part of research and development—not just in biotech and pharma, but across industries. In our sector specifically, AI is accelerating almost every phase of R&D, from identifying the right molecules to designing clinical trials. Its impact is already significant.
Looking longer term, I believe AI will eventually replace many processes we’ve relied on for decades, such as animal testing for efficacy, toxicology, or pharmacokinetics. Once pharma companies provide AI systems with access to their compound libraries and associated data, AI will be able to analyze patterns and accurately predict how a new molecule will behave in animals—or even, to some extent, in humans.
Ultimately, I think AI will dramatically speed up and de-risk the entire drug development process.
