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 : HuMAB companies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: keokalani'nui who wrote (201)	7/13/2001 8:03:35 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 1022

potentially eliminating the harmful immune responses that have been observed against native thrombopoietin following the administration of human thrombopoietin. And then maybe not? I'd like them to expand on the epitopes on TP that elicit the "harmful" antibodies. And, as always, there's the issue of immunogenicity for the new CDRs of the MAb itself. I'm all for innovation in the field. I'm not certain that engineering is necessary, apart from the standard sort of stuff that CAT et al. could do. I presume, but do not know, that they're actually modeling the relevant structures in the "ligand of interest" and making CDR inserts that mimic them. If true, then this isn't exactly fast and easy. A Medline for Dr. Bowdish doesn't say much apart from that she was accomplished, if a bit green, before joining industry.

To: keokalani'nui who wrote (201)	7/14/2001 12:26:06 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1022

>> I had assumed x507 gummed up cross signaling between T-cells by competitive binding. << Could well be. But, there are a couple of in vitro studies out there (let me know if you want the abstracts) that suggest otherwise. I waited for the data on Amevive. Loved the voyage through Biogen Bull that George described, but...... having arrived at our destination, what does it mean for 507? From the initial description of results by MEDI, one might assume that 507 either works by a different mechanism than Amevive, or that it complements Amevive's mechanism with a second (apoptosis of antigen-activated cells?). It's a long shot. However, the eventual prize for any MAb that can specifically down-regulate a specific immune response is $5 billion plus. At 10%, the potential BTRN payback is enormous. So, we can (1) assume that the initial feedback with respect to 507 dosing implies that it won't encounter Amevive's blech re. relative efficacy, or (2) get depressed, throw in the towel, and line up behind anti-CD11a. Which was are you leaning? Others??