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: Biomaven who wrote (2552)	1/12/2001 12:18:19 PM
From: Jibacoa	Respond to of 52153

Any opinions about LYNX ? It has had a good % move today. They announced last week approval of its patent: HAYWARD, Calif., Jan. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: LYNX - news), a leader in the development and application of novel technologies in genomics, announced today the U.S. Patent Office granted an allowance of important system and method claims in Lynx's patent filings covering its proteomics technology. The allowance follows Lynx's receipt of U.S. Patent No. 6,013,165, issued in January 2000, with respect to the Company's technology under development for separating complex mixtures of proteins. Lynx's proteomics technology is based on the application of solution phase electrophoresis in proprietary micro-channel plates. The process should combine the speed advantages of capillary electrophoresis with the resolving power of two-dimensional (2D) gel-based techniques and is expected to deliver substantial improvements in sensitivity, reproducibility and throughput over current methods. ``In our view, the only way to truly replace 2D electrophoresis in proteomics is with a liquid-based system and technique that is at least as highly resolving as gel-based techniques, but with high throughput,'' said Dr. Norrie Russell, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lynx. ``We intend to seize this opportunity to contribute to the field of proteomics, an area highly complementary with our extensive work and technological base in genomics.'' They also announced some additions to its board: HAYWARD, Calif., Jan. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: LYNX - news) announced today the addition of Richard Woychik, Ph.D., as its Chief Scientific Officer, and William Wong, Ph.D Dr. Woychik comes to Lynx from Pfizer Inc, bringing with him more than 20 years of scientific experience, predominantly in genetics and molecular biology. Most recently, he served as Senior Director and Head of the Pfizer Global R&D Molecular Genetics Research Center in Alameda, California. The stock seems to have bottomed at the 7 1/2 area and has had a nice % move since Jan.9, but is now approaching the resistance from the Dec.11 H at 13 7/8. Bernard

To: Biomaven who wrote (2552)	1/12/2001 1:16:25 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Thanks Peter, interesting link, although it took quite a bit of swallowing to get past the first sentence: Start-up companies and venture capital investing in the life sciences have grown, matured and evolved immensely since the 1975 discovery of PCR* unleashed the first wave of biotech entrepreneurs* 1975? PCR?!! Someone needs to hit the biotech history books. May I recommend Robbins-Roth's Alchemy to IPO primer? -g- Unforgivable for the author who completed his PhD in Organic Chemistry in the laboratory of Nobel Prize-winning professor E. J. Corey, at Harvard University Then again, those chemists tend to know diddle about biology -g- PB Footnote: nobel.se The PCR technique was first* presented as recently as 1985 ...* 10 years here, 10 years there, pretty soon we "fix" our NPVs

To: Biomaven who wrote (2552)	1/12/2001 10:31:36 PM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 52153

Peter, I don't know how many are aware of the role of the Hospital Internal Review Board process. Some companies will not announce the start of a clinical trial until a desired percentage of total centers are on board. By the time this occurs hundreds of people directly know a lot about the planned trial. Here are two post by a 15 year member of such an internal review board. SECOND POST BubbaRayJR 1/12/01 9:28 pm I'm really surprised that, (edited out by me g.w.), chooses not to make this information public. Any IRB that reviews their study knows what they are testing, what they hope to accomplish, how many patients they plan to enroll, and more importantly (from an investors point of view) how likely they are to achieve that goal (# of patients enrolled). Often the study's exclusion criteria is so restrictive that it's obvious the investigator will never enroll enough patients. We've had several studies that were approved, but enrolled very few patients before they were terminated. The study design is critical. I've invested in a company called POSSIS that may be having similar problems with their TIME I study. They started the study last spring and enrolled only 5 patients before announcing that while their technology successfully removed the clots, they needed to "tweak" the study, the catheter (which removes the clots) and improve physician techniques. I believe their technology will pay off and this "tweaking" early in the study tells me that they are on top of the problems. I wish I could read the investigator's study material. This information is extremely valuable. If you get your hands on this type of information, pay special attention to the number of patients they want to enroll, the patient population, the exclusion criteria, necessary monitoring and the adverse effects expected. FIRST POST BubbaRayJR 1/12/01 7:55 pm George, I've been a member of our IRB for 15 years. The board is made up of six physicians, two pharmacists, a RN, a clinical research nurse, Chief of Medical Staff, an attorney not associated with the hospital and a priest. All of the members, except one pharmacist (the IRB coordinator) vote. Our main objective is to ensure patient safety. We receive the entire study protocol which may or may not be presented at the Committee meeting by the investigator. Our Committee reviews the study's science and Informed Consent. We meet every six weeks and often do not approve a study on the first review. Most of the problems we find are associated with the Informed Consent. The Consent must be written on an eighth grade level. If the study is turned down on the first review, the investigator is told what to correct and then the study will be considered at the next meeting. When the study is approved it must go through the Clinical Research office to set up reimbursement, logistics, etc. This may take days, weeks or months. It really depends on how well the study is being run. We have a group of investigators that normally receive IRB approval on the first review and often have their study underway within 2-4 weeks after IRB approval. Once the study is underway we receive periodic information about adverse effects. We use this information to evaluate the Informed Consent side-effect/risk section to determine if it should be changed. Each study is reviewed yearly by the IRB. The investigator must send information including the number patients enrolled and if the study will continue to enroll patients. We are not required to keep silent about the information we receive, patient confidentiality excluded. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.