Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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

To: smh who wrote (2320)	12/17/2000 12:46:42 PM
From: Spekulatius	Respond to of 52153

Genomic land Grab Itsd interesting to see how opinions differ even in fundamental things as the number of genes in the human genome. Another view on that question: LEXG claims that they have 95k mouse clones each of them with one (or more?) genes knocked out. Well, if LEXG is studying only single knockouts (I'd guess that this is true for the vast majority of the clones since they would need at least 50k^2 variations to even account for all the 2-way combinations, using the lowest estimate for the # of genes), then this would be a strong argument for more than 50k genes, right? And even if all genes encoding proteins are discovered, I do not think that the land grab is over, as long as their function is unknown. I would think that the patent office will not allow to broad and unspecific claims on genes.

To: smh who wrote (2320)	12/17/2000 9:38:27 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

In a month or two, Celera Genomics (CRA:NYSE - news) will publish the full human genome sequence -- and people will realize there are actually fewer than 50,000 genes in the human genome. (Lissa Morgenthaler at TSC). Yeah, right. The genes will all be colored gold - that's how we'll recognize them of course. The fact is that as far as I know there is no software out there (including CRA's) that will precisely and accurately identify all the genes. Thus the mere publication of the raw sequence (or even the annotated sequence) isn't going to settle anything. OTOH, I suspect she may well be right that HGSI has grabbed more of the land than others realize. Between HGSI and INCY, it's not clear how much room is left for CRA, at least on the pure gene patent side. Of course this begs the question of just how much any "bare" gene patent (no function known) is going to be worth anyhow. She also doesn't acknowledge that INCY's value is largely based on its contractual arrangement with its database subscribers, not on any gene patents they may have. My actual feeling (not based on much in the way of hard knowledge) is that single gene patents may not be worth that much. If you look at the microarray experiments (of the sort that RSTA does), you'll see that large numbers of genes turn on and off together in response to most stimuli. This implies (to my naive mind anyhow) that most genes work in concert with many others, and to really control the system you will have to understand and control very many different genes at once. (Of course there conceivably may be a few "master" genes of some sort tucked away that may prove enormously valuable.) If I'm correct, then a simplistic "count the gene patents and multiply by $x/per gene) isn't going to provide much valuation insight at all. Peter