ArQule, Inc. (ARQL) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : ArQule, Inc. (ARQL)

ARQL 20.00

0.0%

Jan 16 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tuck who wrote (227)	5/4/2005 10:46:33 AM
From: former_pgs	Read Replies (1) of 545

With the caveat that I know nothing... >a) due to ARQL having developed some inhouse capability in this area through recent hires, etc., as they expanded beyond 501,< Good chance that this can explain the low external costs. However, my hang-up with this possibility is that the external spending on 650 is high. It is unlikely that they use the in-house capacity purely for one project and not another. It is possible that the stage of research for 550 is just simply at a point where all of the work is internal. >b) the compound is sufficiently similar to 501 that lots of preclinical work isn't really necessary, and/or< Dunno. But I personally wouldn't like this option too much because it would be discouraging to see them develop a pegylated / liposomal version when the naked version (arq501) just entered the clinic. What does that say about 501? Most encouraging would be an outright new chemical entity rather than 501 in new digs. >c) they want to keep trade secrets to themselves, so they're doing it in house< Sure, but then does that mean they're not carefully protecting 650? I'm probably making something out of nothing.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next