>> Rick--you're the monoclonal antibody enthusiast,
any feedback on this news release? <<
Mike:
I haven't looked closely at the post-translational issues of assembling four polypeptides from two genes in the mammary gland. When the upfront payments get larger than a fraction of $3 million, I'll be convinced that the customers are doing something other than getting in line. OTOH, it is in the interest of GZTC to do backend loaded deals if they can actually produce sufficient product at decent margin.
So...... consider that I haven't done sufficient homework (there is at least one contributor to this thread who is much more up to date on this issue than I am..... he/she may not feel free to comment), but I am very enthusiastic about GZTC and antibodies. The current products are on the market at modest margins, and BMY, BGEN, IDPH, BTRN/MEDI, etc. are wishfully targeting huge markets, chicken soup markets. Costs need to come down while maintaining or improving margins. Looks, to me, like GZTC is a way to play.
One thing..... I feel that Genzyme groups are a bit quicker to tell you about technical successes than technical hurdles that still need to be taken..... not my favorite style.
We still need data regarding half-life in humans. Certainly, FDA has a history of approving absolute muck from plasma donors. When I was at Cutter, we had an approved intravenous polyclonal that was literally blown apart by reduction.
Rick |
