Hi Lexi2004,
This is an example of why MCET's press release is puzzling to me (and others I have spoken with who are experts in TLR signaling).
There is a company in San Diego called Anadys. They have some ties with Scripps/UCSD. They have used a TLR7 agonist to kill hep B or hep C. This is the opposite of what MCET is apparently doing (inhibiting signaling through TLRs 3, 7 and 8 via RNAi).
anadyspharma.com
They have an IND approved as of August of this year, and have completed a Phase Ib trial of a synthetic agonist (isatoribine, or ANA975) that showed an average 83% reduction in hep C viral load after 1 week of treatment. They have since expanded the studies to other viral pathogens---no doubt including avian flu. After all, TLR7 is a pattern recognition receptor that detects a very wide array of viral pathogen-derived molecular components. Also, a paper published in August showed that unlike the closely-related influenza A (H1N1), avian flu (H5N1) activates members of the MAPK cascade including p38 and Erk-1 and Erk-2 kinases, which are also downstream of TLR7 (and other TLRs). That doesn't prove anything necessarily, but it is suggestive.
Another product (ANA971) has completed a safety trial in human subjects.
anadyspharma.com
They have agreements in place with Novartis (and Hoffman-LaRoche and a few others) who will partner in pipeline development of this and several other TLR-directed drugs. Anadys has already received milestone payments.
Just comparing the two, Anadys seems to be well-established, well-funded, completely above-board, and ahead of the pack with a clear pipeline based upon established and published data. I'd say they are way, way ahead of MCET, and on the right track. I can't make a decent judgement about MCET from their vague press release----and that alone raises red flags. Furthermore, they seem to lack relevant publications or clear information on their website, which raises even more red flags.
Anadys trades under the symbol ANDS, and they trade on the Nasdaq, they are not a pink or a BB stock. They have been trading now for about 18 months, and have traded between a low of about $5 and a high of about $14, which was hit in September. They have since corrected back to about $11.
stockcharts.com[w,a]daclyyay[dc][pd20,2!b100][vc60][iLp15,5,5!Lk14]&pref=G
So, one obvious question is why MCET is pursuing a strategy opposite to that of ANDS, which already has an FDA IND and clinical Phase Ib data to support it? Why does MCET think that inhibiting signaling by TLRs 3, 7 and 8 will eradicate virus, when the clinical (and in vitro and animal model) data all indicate that activation of the pathway is needed to destroy the virus? Where is the data in support of that approach?
I have no position at all long or short in either MCET or ANDS. But if I were going to buy the story (TLR-directed drugs in treating viral infections including avian flu), personally I would pick ANDS without question. MCET isn't even in the same ballpark.
I haven't thoroughly researched other players in the field, but I know of nobody else who is close to ANDS in terms of developing TLR-targeted therapies.
T |
