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: Jibacoa who wrote (3783)	5/13/2001 10:56:29 PM
From: tommysdad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Well, IMO, the two companies have virtually nothing in common, and attempts to value one should not take into account the other. CART is designed to discover ligands to orphan GPCRs. I suppose it has other uses, but that's what it was designed for and what, evidently, it's main utility currently is. It arguable whether or not CART is "designed to identify drug-like compounds more efficiently than traditional drug discovery techniques". I think it is more accurate to say it is designed to validate (orphan receptor) targets more efficiently than traditional techniques. Whether compounds discovered using CART are more drug-like or have any future as pharmaceuticals will still need to be determined using "traditional techniques". SNP-it, on the other hand, is destined for the "personalized medicine" future that many think is coming. Again, not designed to identify drug-like compounds, but to better design clinical trials and target drugs to those who may actually benefit. Not really a "drug-discovery" technology, but more like a polling system for drugs. I don't think it is appropriate to value these two companies in a similar manner, or in a manner similar to that Merck used to buy Rosetta.