Jeffrey,
The answers to your questions obviously go beyond CYGS claims. They would be better posed to the company, but if you're interested in my personal opinion, I've given some below:
Graham
---- repost with comments------>
Graham, good to see someone sticking to the science here. I have a few questions:
1. What other cell lines will the vector work on? I suspect they should at least already have nailed down Cos-7, but what is the timetable for the others?
G: Only one confirmed demonstrated is HeLa (human pituitary based.) The next ones targetted are:
Cos-7 - monkey kidney - as you suggest important due to its popularity as a cell line for testing with well understood correlation to human performance.
U-251 - human brain - not a popular test line. My assumption is that this must be driven by a possible specific alliance or project.
Time scale for these last two is unknown.
2. What type of applications are we talking about here?
a) Anti-cancer, b) telomerase, c) antisense, d) all three
G: I would estimate that the first we will see some specific evidence for is antisense delivery. This would obviously require a relationship with a company owning antisense molecule patents. Many of these are in current clinical trials as you must know. Any direct antisense application would require CYGS to acquire/license or develop an antisense molecule and be subject to full FDA routines at their cost.
Telomere repair will require considerable further work and full FDA routine again. Applications for telomere repair include anti-aging and (due to telomerase inhibition) possible anti-cancer application. There is other competitive work going on in antisense based telomerase suppression which would be a factor in the development of that application.
3. Has any patent yet been granted? Anyone can file a patent. And even if CYGS has excellent technology, without a patent being granted they run the risk of patent infringement. What they are doing is a very competitive thing, so without a patent, they have no leg to stand on, and as CYGS is betting the farm on this, no CYGS.
G: Their statement on the BB covers current position.
4. How close are they to any sort of clinical application?
G: Clinical trials could be as close as an alliance with an antisense company. Application will obviously depend on the completion of the FDA due process by that company.
5. When do they expect Dr. Conrad to finally publish on his research, and in what medical journal do they realistically hope to be accepted into? If CYGS truly does have something that will "rock the medical world", then I expect them to say Nature or Scientific American.
At the very least, if the technology is "decent", I expect Cell.
G: I've never mentioned "world-rocking". I do believe the ability to deliver single strand DNA into targetted cells is unique and valuable. This kind of news would be expected to appear first in a journal such as CELL or similar peer-reviewed journal. Scientific American and other popular press publications are follow-ups. When? I don't know - hoping for soon. |
