SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Biomaven who wrote (1232)6/23/2000 10:02:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist  Respond to of 52153
 
Peter,

Maybe you should have been a lawyer. <g>

Hey, no need to get offensive -g- (for those enduring this dialogue: among his several academic degrees Peter, if I recall, does have a JD or equivalent; this in jest)

In your defense: if you had not posted such a lucid passage from the 1997 PR, I would have been too lazy to check as well, and I would still be assuming instead of actually (almost) knowing.

Technology wise, it is hard to see real differences. The "current" ABGX transgenic mice have more human V genes than MEDX's. However, with the Kirin technology, MEDX "new" mouse has all the human V genes. I is still to be determined if this makes a real difference. Presumably more genes is better, as you are dealing with a larger "library" from which one can get higher affinity antibodies. This is certainly true with artificial libraries such as those made by CAT or their competitors. In the animal, given that there are other mechanisms to improve affinity, this may be less important. Of what's published, it is hard to see any systematic advantage re. affinity in one system versus the other.

ABGX's business savvy has been shown many times to be light years ahead of MEDX's, and this is reflected in their relative valuation (trying to stay on topic here -g-). MEDX's pipeline sucks wind, while ABGX's does look somewhat interesting.

All this being said, I hold some MEDX but no ABGX, go figure. Actually, I am just cheap.

PB



To: Biomaven who wrote (1232)6/25/2000 12:02:00 AM
From: aknahow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 52153
 
Peter, does PDLI also have xenomouse technology? The 1998 PDLI annual report show MDRX as a PDLI technology licensee.

Among many other things, I am unable to understand the continued strength in PDLI and the dual acceptance and parroting that the xenomouse technology is the wave of the future. Am aware of Mike Clark's position but he has done work for PDLI and as Psuedo posted has some of his own patents not based in any way on xenomouse technology.