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 (2990)	2/26/2001 1:25:48 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 52153

I think it's also worthwhile to think about the valuation implications of the gene "undercount." Right now, the whole thing has been a short-term negative for the sector. When you get CRA, INCY and HGSI snarling at each other and complaining that what the others have been doing is wrong or incomplete, it undermines confidence in the whole genomics sector. However, this simply effects perceived valuation, not "true" valuation. On "true valuation" things are much less clear. Fewer genes perhaps implies that each one is more valuable, and people coming later to the party than INCY and HGSI may not have much left to feed on. On the other hand, fewer genes likely implies greater complexity in the control of gene expression and protein production. That likely makes an underlying single gene patent less valuable. It might also imply the "gene to drug" path is harder than at first thought. That would be bad news for just about everyone in biotech and pharma, except perhaps for the companies involved in teasing out gene function and control. (I'm thinking companies like RSTA, LEXG and SGMO). Bottom line though is that I think it's just much too early to tell. Peter

To: Biomaven who wrote (2990)	2/26/2001 1:29:55 PM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter, Do you really believe that "junk" DNA has no purpose? ... or rather, that current scientific body of knowledge is inadequate to understand the purpose of most of the DNA. On an intuitive level, it strikes me as rather unlikely that evolution would favour a lengthy DNA strand where up to 97% has no useful purpose whatsoever. It's much easier for me to believe that we have much to learn, instead. Just a layman's thought, Ian

To: Biomaven who wrote (2990)	2/26/2001 1:54:30 PM
From: keokalani'nui	Respond to of 52153

Peter, my book reviews: Message 14555941 Thought Genome was superb. --Wilder

To: Biomaven who wrote (2990)	2/26/2001 4:37:42 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter, regarding pseudogenes or other false cDNAs, I guess it is possible. People who do these things for real (not for pseudo) may have a better idea of how often this may occur. In the case of HGS at least, we have heard that they have made proteins out of a number of the full-length transcripts in their database. They should have a good idea of what portion of their clones can or cannot make protein. I did read Ridley's book and found it uneven. It does have an amazing amount of information, and is certainly entertaining. Here are reviews of some of the genome books, Ridley's included: salon.com PB