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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elmer who wrote (6331)5/15/2002 3:00:40 AM
From: scaram(o)uche  Respond to of 52153
 
David:

Immunotoxins are tough. Follow them, but only VERY loosely. Management, IMO, once had some issues with timely reporting of downside (re. ricin conjugates and commercial viability). Mitch seems to have cleaned up his act. If you look at the early days of the thread here at SI, you'll find direct interaction between the two of us.

I believe that they're claiming that there is no issue with immunogenicity of the DM1 conjugates. That would be a good start. The "small molecule" argument was BS, but if they now have sound data from extensive rechallenge in humans, great!

I was also somewhat surprised that they have come so far back toward cash. Someone here (Miljenko? Peter? rkrw?.... sorry if I haven't attributed correctly) recently noticed the deal between DNA and SGEN, and wondered if this was a reflection of "issues".

The entire business plan depends on finding antibodies that see cancer cells but do not see -- or barely see -- normal cells. The first IMGN antibody (C242) appears to be a good choice, but that's from a first glance.

The concept is a very old one that has failed at multiple companies. But DM1 looks better, to me, than previous toxins. Open mind, but skeptical.

As Peter has pointed out, if it works, it's an exclusive franchise. Seems worth taking a close look, and particularly worth knowing why DNA chose SGEN as a second partner?? Good luck.

Rick