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 (2840)	2/7/2001 2:04:03 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

>> comments from the more informed amongst us would be welcome << Not commenting directly to p38alpha, as I don't know much about it. However, many intracellular signaling pathways are common to several cell types, and the specificity appears to originate with the receptors which dress the cell. That is, a variety of ligands can trigger the same signal cascade, but a differentiated cell will only express a subset of receptors. Again, I know little about p38alpha. However, a start from this general perspective -- toxicities due to a lack of specificity -- may help to limit enthusiasm in some situations where it isn't justified. Is this part of the rush to MAbs? Is the specificity inherent in antagonism at the cell surface -- of inhibiting receptor-ligand interaction -- fundamentally the sound way to go? Re. the speed needed to complete a phase I study. Fast may be bad. Doses are increased, generally until toxicity is observed, based on tolerance of a preceding, lower dose. A long phase I study may indicate that higher doses were tolerated than anticipated. Just a thought, and, again, I know squat about SCIO.