SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Ciphergen Biosystems(CIPH): -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (20)2/13/2002 2:56:29 PM
From: tuck  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 510
 
I can only guess. Given the difficult environment for the sale of big ticket items & delay in the NIH budget, I wonder how much upside there could be. Though mass specs in general have defied this difficulty pretty well. My gut feeling is that it may be a couple of quarters before CIPH sells lots more systems, but will sell plenty of chips to its installed base. There could be upside from its recently introduced interface for triple quad mass specs, but it would likely be small. Add in inside sellers who have sold from ~$4 to ~$8 and I, for one, have BLUE HP holding for the long term and buying in the $4s. Specifically, I would not be surprised to see Hutchens, the former employee & adversary in the IP dispute, cash in some more chips (so to speak) here; he's been quiet for a few months and has sold at much lower prices. I have no position myself now, but would likely buy in the $4s also.

I am encouraged by the multiple biomarker approach. This recent study in ovarian cancer is interesting, but it is a relatively small market. I'd like to see a large scale follow up to this one (apologies if this has been posted already):

>> Cancer Res 2001 Aug 15;61(16):6029-33

Quantitation of serum prostate-specific membrane antigen by a novel protein biochip immunoassay discriminates benign from malignant prostate disease.

Xiao Z, Adam BL, Cazares LH, Clements MA, Davis JW, Schellhammer PF, Dalmasso EA, Wright GL Jr.

Department of Microbiology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia 23507, USA.

The lack of a sensitive immunoassay for quantitating serum prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) hinders its clinical utility as a diagnostic/prognostic biomarker. An innovative protein biochip immunoassay was used to quantitate and compare serum PSMA levels in healthy men and patients with either benign or malignant prostate disease. PSMA was captured from serum by anti-PSMA antibody bound to ProteinChip arrays, the captured PSMA detected by surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry, and quantitated by comparing the mass signal integrals to a standard curve established using purified recombinant PSMA. The average serum PSMA value for prostate cancer (623.1 ng/ml) was significantly different (P < 0.001) from that for benign prostate hyperplasia (117.1 ng/ml) and the normal groups (age <50, 272.9 ng/ml; age >50, 359.4 ng/ml). These initial results suggest that serum PSMA may be a more effective biomarker than prostate-specific antigen for differentiating benign from malignant prostate disease and warrants additional evaluation of the surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization PSMA immunoassay to determine its diagnostic utility.<<

Dalmasso is the director of Ciphergen's biomarker centers. That's a nice p number, but a protocol and success rate similar to the ovarian study would be major.

I guess I'm saying I think CIPH's a buy on near to intermediate term weakness, since it's had a nice recovery of late; can't be much more helpful than that, I'm afraid.

edit: granted, the above isn't a multiple biomarker assay. Believe there may be other markes that could be quantified and added to the chip, though.

Cheers, Tuck