Hi all,
I have been studying companies involved in antibiotic resistant
bacteria for a little while now and I, too, am impressed with MCDE.
Many fine points have been made here but I did want to add a few
thoughts in regard to Baird's question about the antifungal program.
The Targeted Genomics program consists of 3 sub-programs: Essential
Genes, Pathogenesis Genes and Fungal Genes. The most difficult part
was developing the technology to screen for those genes that are
essential for bacterial or fungal viability. Once that technology
is in place, it seems that by simply modifying the multi-channel,
high-throughput screen, one could switch from bacteria to fungi. So
I think that it is a natural extention to the Essential Genes program.
However, the fungal program is definitely receiving less attention
than the bacterial program, and rightly so. My take on this is that
MCDE wants to exploit the proprietary multi-channel method to find
as many essential genes as possible and patent them all. This gives
them an envious patent portfolio now from which they can later search
for drug candidates or license to big pharmas.
It's smart - these folks seem really on top of what they do. The
Cubist news suggests that CBST may not be quite on top of things. It
should also be noted that Pfizer has a rather large antibiotic program
and has inked a pretty decent deal with MCDE in their bacterial
essential genes program. I take this, combined with the Cubist news,
as evidence that Pfizer is not simply spreading money around to hit
all biotechs doing research in this area. They currently see value
in the MCDE approach and are less enthusiastic about CBST.
Based on the progress of the unpartnered programs and their relative
importance at MCDE, my guess is that the bacterial cell wall
program will be the next deal. However, I don't think they will be
in any hurry - they are pretty strong financially.
John |
