Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
NikLinna, it is a press release from a few Mo's back. It looks like the comp. has put out press releases over the last 2 years around half a dz. between the 19th of the mo and the 30th. therefore we could be getting a press release next week.
DNAPrint genomics, Inc. announced today that it has filed a patent application to protect 2,425 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) useful for predicting response to a large number of commonly prescribed drugs.
Because ADMIXMAP is the first platform to enable cost-effective whole genome scans in heterogeneous populations, we expect it to have a profound impact on genomics- based drug and diagnostics design and we consider its development to represent an important milestone in human genome research."
razorshaq;
Its the best deal on the market right now,i think your best buy in is where the pps is right now {give or take a penny} . Aug, 15 will show the 2 Qt. filing and in my opinion you will see a very strong showing in profit from now on. The comp. is making money, more so now than ever before. With every passing Mo. the demand for their product gets bigger and bigger.They are expected this year to comp out with Retinome{ha} Hair color, and Retinome{ta} eye color. Height & weight could be added to the package as well. There is also Ancestry 3.0 a ethnic Classifier that could be out by the endof the year. maybe. On top of all this you have Statnome project. This could be out this year pending FDA approval. And there is so much more. Check out their web site and 3 different news letters sent out by Tony. Good luck.
worktoplay, thanks ,its very interesting that all 3 ended up working at Dnap in the same time frame. To take a cut in pay, quite their jobs and come to work for Dnap they had to see something very very big. And Tony will not take on just anybody, there's something to be said about Tony giving the ok for all 3 from the same place at the same time.Tony must have seen something in it of great value.
Did anyone find out about bookbinder? is she working for dnap ?
Arch, you can use - ss - But i think you hit the nail on the head.Dr. Gomez has been around.
Hector Gomez MD, Ph.D. is a seasoned biotech leader and clinical pharmacologist, with expertise in the business and science of developing novel therapeutics for common diseases. Dr. Gomez has previously served as President and CEO of Transcend Therapeutics, Inc., Vice President of Medical Affairs for Vertex Pharmaceuticals and as an Executive Director with Ciba-Geigy Corporation. Prior to 1988, Dr. Gomez was a Senior Director at Merck/MSDRL Corporation. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Zengen, Inc. His research career to date has focused on the clinical pharmacology of Hypertension, Hypokalemia, Hyperglycemia, Hyperuricemia and Hypercholesteremia drugs.
But i'm not sure about bookbinder is she working for Dnap ?
There is some big names here they did bus./w.
http://www.sema4usa.com/Company/customers.html
What do Hector Gomez,Lonnie Bookbinder,and Richard Gabriel have in common ?
News Release
07 November 2002
Contact: Mark S. DiSalvo
978 794-3366 X 322
mdisalvo@sema4usa.com
Semaphore Dedicates Life Sciences Diligence Practice
Firm emphasizes and expands Technology and Sciences diligence to Bio/Pharma markets.
(Boston- London- Zurich) Sema4, Inc. (Semaphore) announces the expansion of its Technology Diligence practice. Stating that Semaphore clients are experiencing greater activity in the Life Sciences markets, Semaphore CEO Mark S. DiSalvo states “We thought it appropriate to greater emphasize the skills and resources we have to provide assurance and Independent Verification and Validation in the Life Sciences and Bio/Pharma markets, especially since our clients are asking us to perform this level of assurance.”
This dedicated Life Sciences business practice was created to provide visibility and clarity to the decision-making process. “It facilitates informed judgments on risk and opportunity. The Life Sciences are often subject to misunderstanding, misapplication and misrepresentation,” said DiSalvo. DiSalvo explained that this confusion has a deleterious effect on productivity in even the most business savvy environments. Semaphore research has discovered that when Technology Diligence is applied prior to, or in concert with, a funding event it provides appropriate and necessary discipline to the judgment process. The result allows for increased confidence in the decision contemplated and executed. Research confirms that Bio/Pharma projects such as drug development are nearly always over budget, behind schedule, or are abandoned completely. Facts are that the FDA approves less than 2% of the drug pipeline. Those that do receive approval often are not commercially successful. Semaphore services in this space include Clinical Trial review, FDA compliance and certification process monitoring, proof of science concept, and acquisition target validation.
The firm has significantly expanded its resources globally in the Life Sciences space. Richard Gabriel former CEO of Calix Corporation is the point person for the firm as head of Life Sciences diligence services practice. “I am delighted to join the quality team represented by Semaphore. Its skills providing real-world diligence from Emerging Technologies to Enterprise Software to Life Sciences are legendary,” he added. His team includes: Hector Gomez, MD, Ph.D, former CEO of Transcend Therapeutics, Inc. and Lonnie Bookbinder, Ph.D, an experienced large Pharma executive. “The strength of this dedicated team will offer our clients the clearest direction and best assurance of success possible. We bring hard science and business savvy to the table every day,” Gabriel added.
About Semaphore Services:
Semaphore provides Technology Diligence, Project Assurance and Business Advisory services in areas from Enterprise Software to Life Sciences for Corporations, Boards of Directors, and Private Equity, VC, Law firms and Investment Banks. Semaphore is a 14-year consultancy providing skilled real-world practitioner Technology Diligence, Project Assurance and Business Advisory services. Among its offerings are warranted Technology Diligence to the funding community, Independent Verification and Validation for ongoing projects, asset valuation, licensing evaluation and marketing and sales analysis. Clients include: Travelers Insurance, Shared Medical Systems, Fleet Bank, Sandia National Labs, Vertex Pharmaceutical, The Federal Reserve System, Zurich Allied, Alta Communications, M/C Venture Partners, IDX, and the National Security Agency.
About Semaphore Services: www.sema4usa.com or www.sema4europe.com:
-30-
•back to previous page
/ home / about us / services / hot jobs / glossary / contact us /
© 2003 semaphore. webmaster
bag8ger,nice post thank you.On raging Bull there were only 5 or 6 I had membermarked you were one of them, over 100 on ignor. I to enjoy your posts and look forward to many more.Have a great day.
stockboy, thanks to you as well. Perhaps i may continue. I think this week may have some big news.
ustacud, thank you for your post perhaps I will continue with it.
In my life there has always been a strong value system in education I believe in this and teach it to my chrilden. In my circle of friends the quest for knowledge, the analytic approach to knowledge, the sharing of knowledge has been a great approach to friendship.This includes the review of old info. for many reasons. The reasons for review are many, and have NEVER been called into questioning, nor has anyone in my circle ever been Ostracize or excoriated for wanting the review of past/old info. {how many times have you read the same book over and over, and there are many reasons for it}.But i'm not going to waste time in listing the reasons why there is a place for the review of info. because it is not the place or the reason for this post.
When I first started posting here I thought, hay, new start, new place, new faces. Offering the review of comp. info. {some of which was not even a year old} sounds like a good way to contribute. But there were some of you who WERE offended and some of you who gave out warnings to be ware,and some of you who "in the nice way" advised me to not offend the longs. I could not help feel the same hostility that I once felt in the beginning on Raging Bull coming my way . Should i dare continue in sharing and supporting in comp. info. and risk being ostracize,by disrespect, spurious,arrogance.Well i guess i need to know, for my self, just how far some of you would go in your attempt to shut me up on comp issues. And i cant help think that it will only be a short period of time before all the bashers on raging bull will be over here and than it starts all over again. Now i have spent enough time to know how the game is being played here and its a very sad day when people leave because of honest efforts to inform. There must have been 5 or 6 posts against me and perhaps 1 or 2 that said thank you without criticism.
Now i'm not sure what is to be gained by my posts here already running into res. Perhaps it is wiser to just sit on the side lines and let you all do the work. I have received many e-mails from Tony to share but after testing the waters here i have to wonder if it's worth it anymore.Perhaps in the end all you need to hear from me is - "Have faith, Hope and dont worry". Do you know who that is from ? if so then you know what to do.
Tony also said there are patents that he doesn't want anyone to know about.Ask your self, What could that be about ? You know its got to be Big, really Big. So what list can we think of that would be really Big ? The list cant be that long.Cancer has to be on the list { and I dont mean Ovarian}.What else could be Big ?
mingwanO
Thanks again for the great post.I to think FDA regulatory and compliance will be coming soon.Along with Ancestry 3.0, Hair and eye color as well.I also think Statnome is ready for marketing except for its FDA approval and Tony will not make a move without it.Also this year I think we will get forensic accreditation.If only half of the things happen that are expected we will be going to the mooooooonnnnnn.
hornsky0
Thankyou,i to have 700,000 shares and would not if there were no value in the comp. Dnap will be huge because they are taking the time needed to do it right the FIRST time around. With patents, patents upgrade, FDA approval, and police creditation.We will do well.
I think Stocky will miss the boat on this one. Every Mo. we have had News,at least one.Either at the beginning or near the end of the Mo.
In the Back drop of all the News we got over the last 3 or 4 weeks it stands to reason that something BIG could have come out of it.
Comp. officer filing 144 to sell
Hector Gomez telling about eye and hair color, in the news.
Tony making Big Move on the upgrade of pr Dept.
Tony in a number of places has said;eye and hair color will be out soon.
I feel it in me Bones,something Big is coming
I like to see stocky get in late so i can have a good LOL.
Miss Scarlet, no problem here, except I only get 18 posts here. LOL
DougS, I cant do that, but i think that's a great idea. I must go for now before my daughters get very very upset with me. LOL
bag8ger, my name is trash only to trash, in this i do not care, at all about.I am trying to understand what you are trying to get at. For those who held me in contempt there never was any respect coming from them and there were a lot of them.But there was also many who held me in high regard.You are now talking about my "prolific style of educating as slop and trash" and i cant help to think you are talking about my posts here and now.How ever old the info may be is still info. coming from the comp. without any bashing on my part. Call it Dnap 101, if you will.For the newbe's here, now dont tell me there are none, because than i may think your up to something more than informing me about who posts here.LOL Every school in the nation has a beginning course, a place to start, and every year its offered. There is a reason for this,as i'm sure you know. My style is to share info. both old and new for both newbe's and longs. You know as well as i each day the comp. grows and so does the posters here looking for info. Dont get me wrong I am not defending my position here to post what i post, i am sharing with you my view as friends should. If i started to feel i had to defend my position here over the posting of any kind of info. than we would not be friends but have a relationship of a different kind of nature.if the posting of old info. stress you than simply overlook it or simply view it as not for you but for others. Have a good night.
stakddek,thankyou,the info. i posted was for newbe's as i am new to the board here i did not know the number of newbe's here. My time is very limited as my family put their demands on me. My posts are in the am and pm. I'm looking forward to this new board and as my 3 year old is pulling on me now I must go. Again thanks and have a good night
ustacud,it is my intent to be as amicable as can be.All i ask is to receive the same respect that we should all receive. If not for no good reason I can be a real b.a.s.t.a.r.d. for a very long time. What goe's around comes around. But as i have said and will say again. I will be as congenial and as precocious as can be. So, now, the ball is in their court. Lets have some fun lets learn togeather,search and find and make the right choices.
80spitfire, my intent is good, to start off, here on this new board. I offer my time in research and e-mails i receive from the comp. and any other info. I may come across.I am here because i want to learn and grow with my investment and maybe have a little fun along the way. But I will not put up with disrespect or any of the B.u.l.l. that we went through on RB.You are free to say what you want and i listen and respect what i read from you and others all i ask is the same, if not then we will have another raging bull all over again.
Dnap's Statnome info. -
From 10Ksb 4-15-2003
Statnome. Statnome is the product we are developing in conjunction with a group of Jacksonville physicians to classify patients as adverse responders or good responders to a class of drugs called statins. Hypercholesterolemic and dyslipidemic patients are at increased risk for heart disease. Currently, these patients are prescribed medications, nicknamed "statins," to reduce this risk.Statins function to decrease cholesterol levels by inhibiting a key enzyme in the cholesterol pathway. According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's National Cholesterol Education Program,
high cholesterol is one of the key risk factors for heart disease.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, and more than 90 million American adults, or about 50 percent of the population, have elevated blood cholesterol levels.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September 1998 says heart disease deaths have declined steadily over the last 30 years, decreasing by 10.3 percent between 1990 and 1994 alone. This
improvement is largely attributable to better prevention of heart disease through the widespread use of statins.
Notwithstanding the efficacy of this class of drugs, individual patients respond differently to statins. About 2-5% of patients are discontinued from statin treatment due to adverse experiences including hepatocellular toxicity (indicated by elevated serum levels of certain liver enzymes), and more rarely, acute renal failure. In
fact, it is recommended that physicians monitor this toxicity by performing liver function tests prior to, and at 12 weeks following,both the initiation of therapy and any elevation of dose, and periodically thereafter. As a recent Time magazine article points out,statins may potentially serve as a useful preventative tool to reduce
the risk of heart disease in the general, healthy population. A key impediment for the expansion of the statin market in this way is the danger posed by adverse events associated with use of these drugs. For example, the long-term effects of hepatocellular injury are not
clearly understood.
The Statnome product(s) could help reduce the risk associated with the use of statins in the general population. The Company expects its Statin project to result in several "diagnomics" test solutions for
routine patient pre-screening prior to statin prescription. Based on the prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypercholesteremia in the population, such a product could enjoy entry into a market in excess of several billion dollars (drug sales). At present our scientists have completed the screen of the xenobiotic genome for the Statnome project and are validating the performance of the resulting classifier.
***************************************************************************************
10k;
At present our scientists have completed the screen of the xenobiotic genome for the Statnome project and are validating the performance of the resulting classifier.
...and this:
Thus, the Company has scaled back its sample collection efforts and is focusing on validating its Statin prediction product (STATNOME) and building a market for and completing its DNA Witness 2.0 line of forensic products. Pending the acquisition of investment funding or the realization of profits from product sales, DNAPrint intends to resume previous rates of collection for its various developmental stage pharmacogenomics projects.
*************************************************************************************************
From the first Newsletter:
OTHER TESTS - We have finished both the genotyping and the computational screening for Lipitor and Zocor, and we have finished the genotyping but not the computational screening for about 15 other drugs we have good sample sizes for. As we complete these projects, we will disclose the results within a formal, peer-reviewed setting such as a professional meeting or in the scientific literature.
*************************************************************************************************
Sept. 23, 2002--DNAPrint genomics, Inc. (OTCBB:DNAP - News) announced on Friday successful results from its ongoing research into the genetic basis for variable Statin response. The results were presented to an audience of health care professionals at the 7th Annual Disease Management Congress in Chicago, IL.
CEO Dr. Tony Frudakis described Company research that has resulted in the identification of certain gene variants associated with and predictive for Statin response. Statins are a class of drugs used to treat lipid disorders and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Largely due to patient genetics, about 25% of patients fail to respond positively to any given Statin, but those that fail to respond to one often respond to another. The findings are the result of a two-year study that focused on 575 patients and seven different clinical measures of response. Using proprietary screening methods, Company scientists were able to identify an unexpectedly large number of variants linked to response. Those associated with response to standard doses of Artorvastatin (sold under the trade name Lipitor by Pfizer, NYSE:PFE) were generally different from those associated with response to standard doses of Simvistatin (sold under the trade name Zocor by Merck, NYSE:MRK), and those predictive for efficacy (how well the drug does its job) were different from those predictive of adverse events such as early stage hepatocellular toxicity (liver stress) or myalgia (muscle pain). The research condensed mathematical encodings for these variants, which the Company calls "eigengenotypes", into a complex genetics classifier capable of explaining almost all of the observed variability in response. Details on how the "eigengenotypes" were measured and computed, or from what genes they are derived were not presented.
The results were described as the fabric for a new genomics test, called STATNOME(TM), which the Company intends to market to the managed health care industry. By allowing physicians to match patients with the Statin most appropriate for their genetic constitution, STATNOME(TM) could enable a dramatic enhancement the therapeutic benefit of this class of drugs. The Company hopes that STATNOME(TM) will reduce the need for frequent follow up visits to the doctors office, obviate an entire menu of clinical tests for monitoring Statin response and reduce the waste that comes from giving medicines to people who are genetically incapable of responding to them. In so doing, the new test could help managed care providers save thousands of dollars per patient, while at the same time, treat their patients more effectively.
Until the tests are manufactured and distributed, Dr. Frudakis explained that the Company plans to exclusively provide STATNOME(TM) classification services for early clinical adopters and progressive patients. The commencement of this service would be announced at a later date. He also outlined Company plans to begin offering services based on the OVANOME(TM) test, which was introduced by the Company last year as the world's first genomics-based test for flagging patients who are incompatible with paclataxel and carboplatin combination chemotherapy (which is the current FDA approved first-line therapy for ovarian cancer; paclitaxel is sold under the trade name Taxol and carboplatin is sold under the trade name Paraplatin, both are manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb, NYSE:BMY). The commencement of STATNOME(TM) and OVANOME(TM) services would make DNAPrint the only laboratory in the world using internally-developed, wholly owned and drug-specific classifiers for the individualization of drug treatment. The tests would be among the very first genomics-based tests ever applied before routine drug use, or for any other clinical practice.
The STATNOME(TM) test could have significant implications for the safety and effectiveness of Artorvastatin and Simvistatin, which combine to serve a $12 billion annual market projected to grow to $20 billion by 2003. Though generally well tolerated, adverse events associated with the use of Statins have recently begun to receive widespread attention. Recently Bayer (NYSE:BAY - News) was forced to pull their Statin "Baycol" from the market due to a fatal response linked to muscle damage and myalgia. Though myalgia is reversible, like hepatocellular toxicity, it is part of a continuum of pathology that leads physicians to switch treatments. By flagging the genetically incompatible before treatment, the Company hopes that STATNOME(TM) will help minimize the negative impact of this widely used class of drugs and change the "trial and error" mentality of today's drug prescription process. In addition, STATNOME(TM) could help expand the market for Statins, many of which are already considered "blockbuster" drugs. For example, Statins are usually given to patients that have a lipid condition that can lead to cardiovascular disease, but there are an estimated 30 million healthy people in the US who are at risk of developing this condition for whom Statins would serve as an effective prophylactic. Mainly due to side effects, and the cost of monitoring these side effects, the cost/impact and risk/reward values for a healthy person at risk of developing a lipid disorder is less desirable than that for the already afflicted. As a result, Statins are still not used in the healthy population. By accurately flagging those who would develop an adverse reaction to them before the drug is given, STATNOME(TM) could someday help Statins overcome this barrier for more widespread use.
*************************************************************************************************Some of the Statinome drugs DNAP is reviewing...01-01-02
Baycol........>now banned by the FDA for high risks involved.
Lescol
Lipitor
Lopid
Mevacor
Niacin
Niaspan
Pravachol
Zocor
http://www.dnaprint.com/bioform.pdf
*************************************************************************************************
From the shareholders meeting March, 2003 -Reported by worktoplay - post# 232636
Ovanome is about a year from market, and DNAP anticipates marketing through a partner. I asked if Statnome was similarly a year out, and the response surprised me. Tony indicated that Statnome would be marketed sooner and the marketing would be handled by DNAP. Obviously, the company is anticipating a much larger market for the Statin classifers which would make it cost effective to run the samples on the UHT.
*************************************************************************************************
Stockholders Meeting 2003 Synopsis...Part II
The Jacksonville Collaboration:
- The Jacksonville Collaboration is winding down. This was a good method of building the initial base of samples, but presented problems in that samples were varied and tended to trickle in a few at a time. They have had much better success obtaining sample SETS from a company in California, and they anticipate continuing that relationship and winding down the Jacksonville collaboration.
Increased Authorization & Warrants:
- Additional shares will only be issued if revenues are insufficient to fund operations. Right now, that is not necessary due to the success of Ancestry and DNAWitness 2.0. If additional capital is required, DNAP will be looking for a mezzanine type investor. Tony explained that he is not interested in a "venture capitalist" that is only interested in gaining access to discounted shares for the purpose of dumping them in the market. He is looking to secure an "investor", that will purchase shares and hold them so as not to depress the share price. He is looking for an entity willing to invest at least $2-4 million. That level of investment wouldn't require a significant number of additional shares, yet would provide the company the working capital it could use to accelerate product marketing, sales, and revenues. In addition, if a larger company wished to purchase DNAP, the shares are now available to facillitate such a deal. That is NOT his first choice, but as the CEO he would have a fiduciary responsibility to present favorable offers to the shareholders for a vote.
- Tony is still looking at the warrants plan and is not convinced at this point that such a plan is in the best interest of shareholders. He will want to be certain that whatever plan is implemented is successful in raising the desired capital and that it will not have a negative effect on share price.
Board Members:
- Jack Luchese was the architect of the warrants offering, but as I stated above, Tony is still reviewing the need and the impact to shareholders. Jack left to take the CEO position with another company which will occupy his time. Richard Gabriel is an experienced executive with specific experience in building successful companies from the ground up. Hector Gomez was also there and continues as a valuable member of the DNAP BOD.
General Observations:
We visited the company on Monday afternoon and spent about a half hour talking with Carrie and Phil Brooks. While we were there, the phone never stopped ringing. Carrie was on the main desk and was in constant discussion with potential Ancestry customers.
I would like to point out that Carrie came across as very personable, pleasant, and customer oriented. Her written communication skills may not be strong, but she was doing a good job of explaining the Ancestry test to the customers that called and was actively fielding questions and was obviously under duress given the volume of calls. She kept her cool and even jabbed at us during the brief breaks in the calls (She said, "Soooooo, are you guys on RB? lol)
Phil Brooks was also impressive. He was articulate, intelligent, and accomodating. He continued to speak with us and answer our questions, returning several times after having been interrupted to answer phone calls. Phil was the impetus for the change in the price of Ancestry. He explained that they are experimenting with the price to gauge the impact on sales volume.
Tony doesn't golf...I told him that was good because we like what he does in the lab! lol
Director Gabriel has extensive experience dealing with FDA and NIH. He explained that the FDA doesn't like to mandate methodology to pharma, but they will "suggest" strongly that certain information be included in a clinical trial data submittal. The recently posted information (mingwan0 posted it) concerning the FDA guidance regarding the collection of patient racial profile information as a part of all clinical trials is a good example. DNAP has submitted comments to FDA in support of that concept.
The group of investors that were there seemed very knowledgable and as others have pointed out, seemed to be good people with a common goal. You had people there from Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, Germany, Florida, Illinois, Colorado, and other places. I enjoyed speaking with many of them and enjoyed being able to put a face to an alias!
I'm sure there was more that I've forgotten so if something else comes to me I'll be sure to post it. I also picked up a new investor packet. The Executive Summary is completely revised and is quite interesting. I'll post some excerpts tommorrow night.
Stockholder's Meeting 2003 Synopsis...Part I
I recognize this is a day late, but I had further to travel than some and got in late last night. Because of that, some of this will be a repeat, and some is a little different than some of the accounts I have read on the RB Board. Those that were there, please respond to anything that differs with your recollection of events:
Tony called the meeting to order and announced the results of the vote. 420 million yes, 9 million no, didn't catch the total on the abstentions.
Tony led a tour of the DNAP facility including the labs and introductions to key employees including Phil Brooks, Dr. Ponnuswamy, Dr. Kondragunta, Zack Gaskin, Matt Thomas, Carrie, etc.
Tony made a brief presentation of the company status, discussed the increased authorization and touched on the rights plan. He also invited questions or comments from the investors. Highlights are as follows:
Equipment:
- Nanogen equipment was brought in specifically for Ovanome samples. Because Ovanome addresses a limited market, it is not very cost effective to run the samples on the Orchid UHT. The Nanognen equipment is better suited to run the small sample volumes expected for the Ovanome classifier. Unfortunately, it turns out that while the chip based analysis provided by the Nanogen would be an advantage, reagent costs are much higher than expected. Nanogen has been asked to address this, but it is possible that the Nanogen equipment will not even be there in the future due to cost of processing.
- The Orchid UHT can process up to 125,000 genotypes per day. More than adequate for immediate processing needs. The bottleneck is in Buccal sample preparation. That is a manual process, is time consuming, and limits overall throughput of the lab. Large companies that have looked at DNAP for larger scale projects find that to be a hindrance. DNAP would like to address that problem through automation, but that will require capital to purchase the equipment.
- DNAP has possession of the UHT and expects to retain possession. GMED is not in a position to dispute ownership since they are essentially in breach of their genotyping agreement, and given their financial status are probably not inclined to spend resources in a legal battle that they would likely lose.
Projects and Products:
- CBS exposure resulted in approximately 400 orders on Monday. This compares to 450 orders in the first two months of 2003. At the new price of $158.00, 14-16 sales per day would completely cover employee payroll. Obviously, orders will trail off, but they are curious to see where the new base will be given the lower price. The company is experimenting with the price of the test to attempt to determine its value to recreational customers. They anticipate rolling some of the revenues back into marketing to increase sales volume.
DNAWitness 2.0 tests are priced at $2000 each. The company has three current customers, and the first of the samples arrived the morning of the meeting. One DNAWitness test per day provides nearly the equivalent of the 14-16 AncestryByDNA tests, and would be sufficient in and of itself to fund the annual payroll. Tremendous interest was generated in the booth at the AAFS Conference. DNAP personnel were in the booth approximately an hour after the exhibits closed each day due to the number of people interested in speaking with them about the test.
- Ancestry 3.0 would take about a year to develop, but will require between $750K to $1 million to fund the research. DNAP would like to solicit a partner willing to fund it's development in exchange for a share of downstream revenues.
- Ovanome is about a year from market, and DNAP anticipates marketing through a partner. I asked if Statnome was similarly a year out, and the response surprised me. Tony indicated that Statnome would be marketed sooner and the marketing would be handled by DNAP. Obviously, the company is anticipating a much larger market for the Statin classifers which would make it cost effective to run the samples on the UHT.
- NYU study is ongoing. NYU Review Board took nearly a year to approve the work, and DNAP will be required to fund a portion of the project. That work will not complete until later this year assuming DNAP has the capital to fund their committment.
TBF Escrowed Shares:
- Two years remain on TBF's option on the 19 million plus escrowed shares, but the one year restriction on the shares was due to expire within 3 days of the meeting. Obviously, TBF would not be executing their option to purchase at $0.05 given the current share price. If the share price does increase sufficiently, TBF would be in position to purchase the shares, but the company would realize approximately $1 million in capital if TBF purchased the shares.
Continued
Executive Summary Continued:
DNAPrint Genomics - Company Advantages
Until now, it has been next to impossible to determine which genetic characteristics make a person a good responder or poor responder to a drug. This is because most drug reaction traits are multi-factorial and heterogeneous, and such problems are difficult to solve using hypothesis-driven research. As a result, scientists have focused on the "low hanging fruit" - simple traits caused by single genes. Unfortunately, 99% of human traits are complex not simple - the eye color of a child cannot be predicted very well simply by knowing the eye color of the parents. Geneticists have been using simple genetics methods for decades to try to understand the genetics of human iris color, and they have failed. More systematic mathematical methods for dissecting genetic pattern from genomics (as opposed to genetics) data are needed to solve these traits, yet they have not been introduced.
DNAPrint mined the human genome for a special type of SNP called an Ancestry Informative Marker (AIM), constructed genome maps of these AIMs and used them with novel algorithms to solve human iris color. The result is a validation of DNAPrint's novel method of using population structure to solve complex human traits, and the company's first product - RETINOME that will be used to give forensics investigators the iris color of an individual who has left DNA at a crime scene.
The challenges are the same whether one speaks of solving iris color, variable drug response (determining why it is that certain patients do not respond to certain drugs) or common diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. To solve these traits, it is necessary to perform pan-genome screening, but one cannot solve these traits simply by screening genomes with randomly selected or publicly available markers. Our competitors do this - they select a small number of SNPs in a small number of genes (called a "Candidate gene" approach) in an attempt to study extreme responder and non-responder phenotypes. If they pick the wrong SNPs or genes, they do not find a solution - this is the problem with the hypothesis-driven approach. Genome based linkage analysis in large populations of unrelated individuals is not cost effective because it costs several hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient to do this type of study properly. Some companies use "isolated populations" to bring the costs down, but this approach carries significant disadvantages because their results do not always generalize to the world population. The result of all of these problems is that no accurate, powerfully predictive genomics based tests have yet been introduced to market.
DNAPrint's will be the first because we are probably one of a handful of scientists in the world that understand how to use something called "population structure" to solve complex human traits. DNAPrint uses an original approach called Mapping by Admixture Linkage Disequilibrium (MALD) with proprietary genomic maps and algorithms (collectively called the ADMIXMAP platform). The scientific advantage is that the markers that constitute our maps are precious ones in that they carry an unusual amount of information on population structure - that is to say, one can infer something about population affiliation (whether continental, intracontinental, or sub regional) by reading each marker. We do not usually seek to identify the actual genes causing the trait (unless we need to for a special reason), but instead we seek to identify those AIMs that are correlated with the genes in a statistical sense. Most human traits are inherited as a function of population affiliation on one level or another - blue iris color is unique to Indo Europeans, prostate cancer is of greater incidence in African Americans, diabetes in Native Americans, and virtually every drug shows different response characteristics in different human populations.
DNAPrint's secret is that exquisitely accurate classification tests can be developed for these problems simply by measuring AIMs! The economic advantage of the platform is that we can screen a genome in 100 individuals for about 1% of the cost of standard methods in existence today (because LD is extreme in recently admixed populations). The practical advantage is that we can develop classification tests without having to identify the actual genes involved. The scientific advantage is that we could easily identify those genes by increasing the marker density within each relevant region.
Using ADMIXMAP, we do better, more systematic and objective science, but we also guarantee that any solutions we find are constructed of private, not public, markers that have ownership implications. Competitors who rely on the public database not only struggle with statistical power, but they will be fighting over the same "SNPs" in the patent office.
Our main advantage is our math. DNAPrint Genomics Inc. was founded by a team of scientists with research and commercial experience in high-level mathematical and statistical modeling, programming and molecular genetics. Mathematical / Statistical genetics talent is limiting and math workflow is a bottleneck faced by our competition. Sound and original math represents an excellent barrier to entry.
We have focused on building one of private industries best analytical teams within the field of population genomics, have begun patenting innovative math tools for this type of research and we have already filed patent for five different mathematical methods and software algorithms useful for finding complex genetic pattern in high-density genomics data sets. These methods have been validated through their performance in the development of the products described in this plan.
The flagship DNAPrint patent is that which describes the 8,000 AIMs and statistical methods needed to perform Admixture Screening using SNPs. We believe that someday those in the field will look back on this patent as a landmark patent because we are the first to realize that most human traits can be understood through an exquisitely accurate measurement of human population structure and sub-structure. Why is it that redheads require 20% more anesthesia than other individuals of European descent? Why do they exhibit excessive bleeding and hypertension under certain anesthetics? Certainly not because of a gene for red-hair! Rather, the complex milieu of genes that predispose to these responses is correlated with Northwestern European biogeographical ancestry - Irish, British, and some Scandinavian. If one considers all of humanity in one giant family tree, and indo-Europeans as a branch of that tree, and Northwest European Anglos as a sub-branch, you would see that humans with red hair constitute a very large extended family, and the aberrant responses to anesthesia "runs in the (extended) family". The markers in the genome necessary for predicting the response are a subset of those that allow you to measure this population structure - to partition this extended family from others. This is the basis of our methodology, and it is extremely powerful, but it is also a new idea, which promises to be controversial even within the genetics community, though we have a large contingent of world-renowned population geneticists that not only support our approach but also are fascinated by it! Our early results speak for themselves!
In addition to this strategic advantage, there are practical advantages of our method. Screening genomes with today's technology is far too expensive, yet most human traits are sufficiently complex that pan-genome screening is required in order to understand them. Multiple genes interacting with each other determine physical characteristics such as height and weight. So too are drug responses or disease susceptibility (i.e. cancer). There is no drug interaction gene or cancer gene; there are several 10s or even 100s of genes that determine these traits. It is well known that over 99% of known phenotypes (physical traits) are more a function of complex multi-gene interactions within and between genetic pathways that single genes.
Most scientists agree that complex genetic analysis will be REQUIRED for the development of personalized medical products, such as those we are developing to match patients with drugs most appropriate for their genetic condition. Those companies with the math that enable this type of analysis will hold a significant advantage.
For example, tests developed by some of our competitors tend to rely on inferences from only one gene, or tend to rely on analysis performed at the level of the SNP (as opposed to the level of complex sets of SNPs called haplotypes). Such tests will be too simplistic to enable sensitive or accurate inferences to be drawn in the clinic. Few companies, including Celera, Motorola, or Human Genome Sciences, for example, have yet presented complex genetics analytical tools or "solutions" and we are one of a handful of companies to focus on math as an enabling tool for the development of products for the emerging personalized medicine markets.
The use of Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs) with Admixture Mapping represents the best, most economical means by which to solve complex human traits and develop classification (predictive diagnostics) tests.
Ovanome Executive Summary: Part 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF OVANOME
DNAP has achieved a milestone in the field of chemotherapy. On March 19, 2002, DNAPrint and University of Miami doctors presented the successful results of an ongoing pharmacogenomics study to the Society of Gynecological Oncology. The team identified a set of variant human genes that may be used to predict therapeutic outcomes for Paclitaxel (Taxol), one of the most commonly used chemotherapeutic agents for cancer. The product of this discovery is OVANOME, and it?s introduction is expected to boost the first-line paclitaxel response rate in chemo-niave ovarian cancer patients.
OVANOME is a pharmacogenomics product known as a classifier or chemo-predictive test. OVANOME will be used to predict the likelihood of response of ovarian cancer patients to therapy with Paclitaxel (Taxol). Patients that fail the first round of treatment have substantially lower survival statistics. By matching ovarian cancer patients with the drug most appropriate for their genetic constitution, OVANOME has the potential to save lives through pharmacogenomics testing. OVANOME demonstrated excellent sensitivity, specificity and predictive value in preliminary tests.
DNAPrint scientists used an innovative heuristic method with geometrical projection to identify and model proprietary ?eigengenotypes?' or population based vectors of genome information, that serve as features for variable Paclitaxel response. The team found that certain Paclitaxel response ?eigengenotypes? were strongly predictive for first-line chemotherapy response in Ovarian Cancer patients. Data was shown that suggests that by screening patient genomes for these ?eigengenotypes? prior to the commencement of chemotherapy, most non-responders could be flagged and re-directed towards altered doses and/or alternative chemotherapy more appropriate for their genetic constitution.
The clinical trial for OVANOME will be finished in early 2004. An application for approval to market, if required, will be submitted to the FDA by mid-2004 and approval obtained by early 2005. DNAP has a patent pending for compositions and methods relating to OVANOME. Sales of the OVANOME products to labs in 2005 will result in income of $4 million. This product launch will create a new, emerging US market of over $16 million. OVANOME is forecast to reach a peak-year sales record of $12 million in year three and hold steady for several years as the classifier test of choice in this market niche.
Abstract
Thirty five percent of Ovarian Cancer (OC) patients fail to respond to first-line combination paclitaxel (taxol) and carboplatin (TC) therapy. Because OC patients exhibit wide variability in the TC metabolism, it is possible that some or all of this variable response can be explained in pharmacogenetic terms. To determine whether common polymorphisms are associated with variable TC response, we applied novel analytics and data resources for a candidate gene survey of those genes most likely involved in paclitaxel disposition.
We genotyped 42 ovarian cancer patients (27 clinical responders and 15 non-responders) at 746 SNPs from 41 xenobiotic metabolism and 3 tubulin genes. Given the previous literature on paclitaxel metabolism, we were not surprised to identify haplotype alleles in Confidential (p<0.000) and Confidential (p=0.005) as significantly associated with variable TC response. However we also identified haplotype alleles in the Confidential (p=0.018), Confidential (p=0.022), and Confidential (p=0.035) genes to be significantly associated with outcome, and haplotype alleles in the Confidential (p=0.07) and Confidential (p=0.07) genes to be marginally associated. We applied linear and quadratic discriminate techniques to model these genetic features for predicting patient TC response.
Using an ?overall? clinical response criteria for evaluation of response over the treatment line, the efficiency of classification was 95%, the specificity of the responder classification was 96% and the negative predictive power of the classifier was 93%. We also developed a set of hierarchical rules using a direction-setting algorithm to capture both linear and non-linear effects and obtained similar results. Comparable results were obtained with either method using an ?average? rather than an ?overall? response criteria. These results confirm and extend previous results suggesting that the Confidential and Confidential family of Confidential genes are important determinants of variable paclitaxel response, but they also implicate the Confidential and Confidential family of genes as determinants as well.
Our results suggest that first-line TC response is largely a function of xenobiotic metabolism in OC patients, rather than tumor type or stage, and that OC patients may be pre-screened for xenobiotic metabolism gene sequences in order to individualize TC chemotherapy.
Table 1. Classification of Ovarian Cancer patients as responders or non responders (columns) to first line paclitaxel + carboplatin therapy relative to their actual clinical response (rows). Classification is made based on the presence or absence of haplotype alleles associated with clinical outcome. Inferred responders are considered haplotype (+), while Non Responders are considered haplotype (-). The rows represent actual responders and actual non-responders, whereas the columns represent classifications as haplotype (+) responders (Columns 2-3) or haplotype (-) non-responders (Columns 4-5). Cell entries represent probabilities, which were derived using the Overall and Average TC response criteria as indicated for each column (Materials and Methods). The column is read as follows: Responders (Row 1, Column 1) were correctly classified as responders using the Overall TC response criteria with a probability of 0.96 (Row 1, Column 2), and using the Average TC response criteria with a probability of 0.96 (Row 1, Column 3). Responders (Row 1, Column 1) were incorrectly classified as non-responders using the Overall TC response criteria with a probability of 0.04 (Row 1, Column 4), and using the Average TC response criteria with a probability of 0.04 (Row 1, Column 5).
Figure 1. Graphical depiction of the potential improvement in response rates afforded by the classifier. Without using the classifier, 30-40% of the patients fail to achieve clinical response (A). Applying the classifier, most of the non-responders are flagged (B) and redirected to other therapy (arrow), in this case gemcatibine and cisplatin. Assuming standard response rates for the gemcatibine and cisplatin therapy, the overall response rate achieved by the bifurcated treatment regimen could approach about 85%.
Matching Dna With Transplantation Patients- Were all going to be RICH,RICH,RICH
"Tony inedicated it took one year just to come to a working agreement,that puts us at Nov,2002. A 1 year term puts it at Nov.,2003 completed".
In November 2001, NYU's Mary Lea Johnson Richards Organ Transplantation Center agreed to provide us with informed consent qualified patient specimens and matching clinical data. We will genetically screen the specimens for markers
and/or marker sets that can be used to distinguish between drug responders and non-responders. To do this, we will employ proprietary genotyping protocols, data resources (the PHENOME SNP database) and our informatics platform. The goal of the project is to identify pharmacogenomic classifiers that could be used to match renal transplantation patients with the optimal immunosuppressant for their genetic architecture. We expect the project to take about one year to complete, and we expect the results to extend to patients for a wide range of transplantation procedures. The Mary Lea Johnson Richards Organ Transplantation Center is one of the busiest and most successful transplant programs in the United States
Dnap working with San Diego Police Dept. Crime Lab -
http://www.chalberweid.ch/DNAPrint/DNAWitness2.0.PDF
Dnap and BREAST CANCER - WOW - we going to the moon
Grant Number: 002/2001 BREAST CANCER - WOW - Testing ends 2003 see below.
PI Name: Arena, J. Fernando - Scientific Advisor to Dnap
Project Title: Development of a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation screening assay for women of African descent.
Abstract: DESCRIPTION: (Adapted from investigator's abstract)
The long term objective of this application is to develop and to clinically validate a screening panel for specific BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation/genetic variants in women of African descent with breast cancer. The development of such panel will allow its incorporation into clinical practice with clear improvement of genetic counseling for this minority population. African-American women under age 50 in the United States have the highest rate of new cases of breast cancer in the nation. In addition, African-American women of all ages have a larger percentage of poorly differentiated breast cancer, that is more likely to occur at an earlier age and to be estrogen and progesterone receptor negative - all factors associated with more aggressive tumorgenicity. Based on this preliminary data and a thorough review of all published English literature, we have identified thirteen mutations and thirteen unclassified variants in BRCA1 and six mutations and ten variants in BRCA2. A screening panel for such BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations/variants will be designed to develop an efficient assay for eventual use in clinical practice. This assay is based on a combination of multiplex PCR and multiplex SSCP in order to provide a high throughput screening method for the above designated genetic alterations. SSCP variants will be further investigated by DNA sequencing to confirm the exact genetic change. The development of this screening panel will have an important impact on genetic counseling for women of African descent. It may also be helpful in anticipating the design of preventive strategies (mammography, chemoprevention, or prophylactic surgery) and in selecting appropriate therapeutic protocols for this underserved and under investigated patient population.
Institution: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
1475 N. W. 12TH AVE.
MIAMI, FL 33136
Fiscal Year: 2001
Department: OB/GYN
Project Start: 01-January, 2002
Project End: 31-December, 2003
FUNDING AGENCY Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center
Address: 1475 N.W. 12th Miami Fl, 33136
Newsletter # 3 - Dear Shareholders,
Developments over the past couple of quarters leave us feeling very excited about our future.
On behalf of DNAPrint, we hope you had a pleasant Thanksgiving. As we head into years end we would like to provide you with another update on how your company is doing. These newsletters offer us a more thorough medium than press releases, by which to communicate these developments to you. We know as a loyal DNAP investor, you appreciate the information we provide you below as guidance on our progress between quarterly reports.
ANCESTRYBYDNA 2.0
We're Soon to be featured in Family Tree Magazine. Since introducing the service 2 months ago, we have maintained a steady sales rate of a few kits per day. It is very encouraging that all of these sales were derived from word-of-mouth. From Sept. 19 to Nov. 27, we had yet to spend a dime on advertising and we registered $32,656 in revenues from kit sales ? 95% of this amount was not on our recent quarterly report, which closed out Sept. 30. The fact that we have sold $32,656 in kits over about a month and a half without any advertising should speak volumes about the potential of our new recreational genomics product. Most of these sales were at lower prices than current and if we maintain a sales rate of only 3 per day we would realize $350,400 per year in test revenues and $208,050 per year in test profits.
Over the Thanksgiving Holiday, we began experimenting with low-budget advertising. Our first experiment was a flier in the Pelican Press ? a community newspaper here in South Florida. This ad cost us $154 revenue, $1500 profit with a healthy margin of 59%), inquiring phone calls as well as a tremendous increase of web site visitors. Again, this illustrates that there is a very healthy recreational genomics appetite out there. Polling results shown below seem to reinforce this view and suggest that our AncestrybyDNA product has excellent commercial potential. Our immediate goal is to utilize low-budget advertising to increase the rate of sales to 6 tests per day, which would provide $817,600 in test revenue for the year ending Sept 19, 2003 and $485,450 in test profit from this one test. Our current data show a sales average of 19 units per week.
Our early sales returns and these types of marketing results are very encouraging, especially in light of the fact that we own a monopoly on the test. This is not like a medical or diagnostic test that a contract research organization or a hospital lab would run, which a thousand other labs throughout the country would also run. We are the only ones capable of using genomics information to determine individual ancestral admixture proportions, and we have filed patent on the methods and markers to ensure that it stays this way. We have already begun running tests for certain American Indian tribes, adoptees, genealogy enthusiasts and key forensic science labs in the US and Great Britain. We expect that the word will spread from these early pioneers to help us expand penetration into the market. To accelerate this penetration, we intend to reinvest the profits back into sales for the product. The goal is to commence larger advertising campaigns to reach the market we know is there and drive our revenues upward with a sort of a snow-ball effect. From our burn rate published in our recent quarterly report, it would seem that we should be able to cover 1/4 th our operating expenses with the profits derived from this one test, but in reality we have significantly reduced expenses since last quarter and we expect the AncestrybyDNA 2.0 test will cover more than just 1/4 th operating expenses. As you can tell, our overall strategy is to first start off operating Ancestry services to prime the pump and feed the development of a kit that could be sold to other labs. Once we begin selling AncestrybyDNA 2.0 kits, we expect that we can grow our revenues from this property even faster.
OVANOME:
We are in the process of executing a blind validation of OVANOME performance, and pending results similar to that which we have observed in the past, we could have our first drug classifier product on the market soon. Of course, since this test would be used by far fewer individuals, we would charge significantly more for this test than for the AncestrybyDNA 2.0 test. As with AncestrybyDNA 2.0, we intend to first start off operating an OVANOME service, build a market and reputation, and ultimately manufacture and sell OVANOME tests to other testing centers. More will be written about this test in the next newsletter?
Commercial genotyping services:
We have been generating revenues by performing basic genotyping services for regular customers such as laboratories and Universities. Here too, we are using low-budget advertising; we recently sent a mailer out to academic labs throughout the country and are making use of contacts throughout the scientific community. Our aim is to cover an additional 1/4 th operating expenses through profits derived from commercial genotyping services, excluding MALD screening (see below). Any more than this and we spend too much time operating like a CRO (Contract Research Organization) rather than developing intellectual property.
MALD screening:
In this newsletter, I want to share with you a very important asset that your company owns. From the science we have performed over the past 2 years, we have learned that the best way to discover disease and drug response genes is through a fine appreciation of population structure, sub-structure and micro-structure. This is a fairly revolutionary idea, and it is what our Ancestry patent is all about (though I'm sure you thought it was all about AncestrybyDNA ? this test is merely a commercially ripe offshoot of this patent). Because of the magnitude of it's importance to our future of identifying disease and drug response gene sequences, I want to make sure that all of our loyal investors understand this asset.
The below is an excerpt from the DNAPrint business plan, which is going through a face lift to accommodate more of a focus on this patent as a platform for discovery, but also our shift towards services to fund kit development in our business model.
The first to identify a disease causing or drug response gene variant owns it, and each variant connection can only be discovered once. Once discovered and patented, the new owner controls their use in the therapeutic and diagnostic markets. Because there are only so many genes for any disease, this means the new owner also controls a significant fraction of the therapeutic and diagnostic market for the disease itself. The new gene variants become markers in new diagnostics tests, and targets against which new drugs can be designed. The process of developing predictive/diagnostics tests and drug development begins with the discovery of genes linked with disease expression or variable drug response.
There are several ways to find these valuable genes. Gene expression screening or proteomics rely on displaying only one facet of the human genome, and they therefore tend to identify markers that characterize the symptoms of, rather than the cause of disease or variable drug response. Most population geneticists agree that the best way to find the genetic roots of disease and drug response, it is necessary to systematically screen the DNA from chromosome 1 to chromosome 23, using a process called Linkage Disequilibrium (LD) scanning. Virtually all of the legitimate disease gene loci or regions discovered to date have been discovered using the LD scanning approach. The human genome map recently published offers us a chance to identify the genes that cause more common diseases such as cancer, artherosclerosis, osteoporosis, asthma etc. However, genomics researchers are currently frustrated by economic limitations imposed by the LD approach.
The Problem:
DNA exists in a block like state, and disease gene screens of the human DNA aim to inspect each of these blocks for sequence correlation with disease. Once the block is identified, the screen can be performed in finer detail within the block and the disease/drug response gene can be discovered.
The block like character is caused by a phenomena called Linkage Disequilibrium (LD), and in most populations LD only extends 10 to 50 Kb. The entire genome is about 3 billion letters, so this means that the DNA is made of a very large number of tiny blocks, as shown in Fig. 1 below.
Unfortunately for genomics scientists, this means that hundereds of thousands of SNPs must be sequenced in each patient in order to assure that every block has been surveyed. Even after the HapMap phase of the human genome project is complete, it will cost about $100,000-$400,000 per genome to achieve pan-genome coverage for a disease gene screen (i.e. to look at all of the blocks, given an average price per genotype of about $0.20). This translates into a cost of about $10Million for the average (100 genome) study. For this reason, the genomics revolution has yet to impact disease gene research significantly. Screening genomes is far too expensive. There are not many companies or academic labs that can afford to spend $10 Million to study a disease in 100 people.
The first company to build a "disease gene discovery platform" to overcome these limitations could be the first to discover hundreds or even thousands of disease genes. Such a company could reap royalties on future drug sales for decades. Given the number of discoveries, and the magnitude of drug royalties, such a company could become very successful.
Commonly Discussed Solutions to this Problem:
Most in the field expect that this problem to be solved by focusing on the development of less expensive genotyping technology to reduce the price per genotype. It seems that 90% of the business plans VC's fund in human genetics and DNA-level genomics are based on developing a new tool for this purpose.
By building a new tool to reduce the price per genotype to a penny or less, disease gene screens could be conducted for about $10,000 - $40,000 per sample, or about $1M - $4M per study. However, this reduction in expense is only moderate, and more importantly, this technology does not yet exist. Due to the economic asymptotes associated with microfluidics handling, it may very well never exist. Given the fact that 90% of the business plans are for the same purpose, the tools business is extremely competitive and few of these companies are ever successful. If more economical genotyping does come to pass from one of the survivors, and if it is successfully reduced to practice and rendered practical, it is uncertain how many years or decades it will take to introduce such technology commercially.
Meanwhile, most in the genomics research community wait. The hunt for disease genes is very much like a treasure hunt, except in this treasure hunt, everyone is waiting for the development of a metal detector that is practical to use (in this case, a cheaper way to genotype). None of the treasure hunters can begin cost-effective work on the richest of the treasure fields until this hurdle is overcome.
Rather than wait, some focus on the relatively barren treasure fields instead ? where the "treasure can be seen with the eye". For example, many restrict their study to groups of families, or within isolated populations (DeCode genetics, focuses on inbred Icelanders and Gallileo Genetics ? focuses on a particular group of inbred French-Canadians). It's less expensive and more practical to find disease genes in these types of study groups because LD extends for greater distances in these special populations. In other words, the DNA is made of a fewer numbers of larger blocks, statistically speaking. However, the genes that are linked to diseases in these special groups are often times not linked to the same diseases in the general population. This is called disease heterogeneity, and it is because of this that study of special isolated populations has been unsatisfying to date ? relatively few disease genes have been discovered that have resulted in new medical treatments applicable to the general population.
The key to finding the genes that cause common diseases in diverse populations is to study natural, out-bred populations such as that here in the United States. By analogy, one cannot learn what types of cars one can buy by visiting only one used car lot (i.e. study the genetics of Icelanders) ? one needs to adopt a more cosmopolitan plan and visit many (i.e. study the genetics of large out-bred populations). In fact, this is why the $3B human genome project was performed ? to establish a tool for the acceleration of genetic research in out-bred populations ? so that genetics researchers can adopt more cosmopolitan plans. Again, though, the problem is that studying the populations that need to be studied is far too expensive.
DNAPrint's Solution is Ready for Implementation:
Rather than focus on tools and hardware, or focus on special homogeneous populations, we at DNAPrint have addressed the cost problem of genomic scanning by focusing on an alternative approach. We stumbled upon this approach almost by accident ? having observed the significant impact that population structure has on linkages between gene sequences and disease/drug response traits. Recognizing an opportunity, we focused our discovery talents towards amplifying these results and the result is that we have become the only company in the world that can perform a pan-genome screen in a natural out-bred population, at a price per genome of less than $1,000. Back in 1988, the mentor of one of our founders (Professor Ranajit Chakraborty, who trained our co-founder Kondragunta Venkateswarlu) described a promising alternative to the standard LD screen called Mapping by Admixture Linkage Disequilibrium. Dr. Mark Shriver and his colleagues now use an offshoot of this method called Admixture Mapping (we will refer to both as MALD/AM). The work was hailed as a possible solution to the genome-screening cost problem, but it has never been used before because the genome had not yet been sequenced and the genome markers necessary for the method had not yet been characterized.
The basis for the method is that in recently admixed populations, LD extends for MegaBases rather than Kilobases (Chakraborty and Weiss, 1988; Stephens et al., 1994, McKeigue 1998, McKeigue et al., 2000). In other words, in recently admixed peoples, the DNA is made of a relatively small number of very large blocks (Fig. 2), which allows pan-genome coverage with as few as a couple thousand markers. This translates into a genome screening cost of only $1-2K per sample. This is a savings of about 1,000-fold!
The method has never before been used because it requires a special type of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) be measured called an Ancestry Informative Marker (AIM). SNPs are those DNA letters that differ between individuals and there are about 2 million of them in the 3 billion letter long genome. The different letters are called alleles. AIMs are SNPs with allele frequency differences among the world's various populations, such as Africans, Europeans etc. Prior to the publication of the human genome sequence map, it was known that AIMs existed, but it was not known what their sequences were and where many of them were located.
DNAPrint was the first (and to date, the only) company to mine the human genome sequence for AIMs necessary for the MALD/AM approach (fig. 3).
Admixture is the blending of two or more races within individuals. In human populations, there are individuals of relatively pure BioGeographical Ancestry (BGA), such as sub-Saharan Africans from Nigeria, Europeans from Northern Europe, East Asians from Northern China and Native Americans from isolated regions of Southern Mexico. In other places, such as the US, there are recently (in evolutionary time) admixed peoples such as African Americans (a blend of African and European BGA) and Hispanics (a blend of Native American and European BGA). Of course there are more than just four continental population groups, and a large fraction of the world population is admixed to a greater or lesser degree.)
The crux of the method is to screen the genome of admixed individuals with disease against AIMs. The disease must be of significantly different character between the races, but this does not impose a significant constraint because most human diseases are of such different character (i.e. prostate cancer is more prevalent in Africans than Europeans, osteoporosis more prevalent in Europeans than Africans or Asians, etc.). For some diseases, such as colon cancer, the difference is not in prevalence, but in the histological and immunochemical character of the tumor. Most diseases qualify for the MALD/AM approach.
The mathematics of MALD/AM screening is complex, and beyond the scope of this presentation. To make a long story short, the statistical analysis for the screen conditions the linkage observed between AIM and disease state on individual admixture proportions in order to identify those AIMs linked with the disease state not merely to ancestral state. Again, since LD extends for such great distances in admixed populations, we can use our AIMs to screen genomes for 1,000-fold less than everyone else.
To use the method, it is necessary to be able to compute individual ancestral admixture proportions within individuals (fig. 3). Individual ancestral admixture can only be determined using AIMs. DNAPrint was the first to not only mine the human genome for AIMs, but the first to develop methods for using these AIMs to determine individual ancestral admixture proportions. Though it was developed for application to MALD/AM screening, this method has obvious peripheral commercial applications and in fact, which we have taken advantage of through the development and introduction of our AncestrybyDNA service.
So, to summarize, your company (DNAPrint) was the very first to Mine the human genome for candidate AIMs Validate these mined candidate AIMs against an international panel of individuals to establish their allele frequencies in the world's populations. File patent on the human genomes best AIMs (with Fst > 0.40, of which we have identified about 8,000). Develop methods for the determination of individual ancestry admixture proportions, which are necessary for the MALD/AM approach.
DNAPrint exercises a virtual monopoly on this method, not only for the present because we are the only ones with the resources to perform the method, but by virtue of our patent, which effectively precludes others from performing the method efficiently.
Our patent application filed last year covers about 8,000 of the human genomes best AIMs (all others are of substandard character for MALD/AM). It also describes how ancestral admixture proportions can be calculated for individuals. We expect that no other group will be able to effectively perform MALD/AM screens without violating this patent. Since the MALD/AM is the only cost-effective means by which to screen a genome, this places DNAPrint in a powerful position.
The MALD/AM patent empowers DNAPrint for far more than merely performing disease gene screens. It allows us to solve common traits valuable to forensics scientists, such as height, hair color etc., and drug response traits. Very few scientists have yet recognized the importance of population genetic structure for solving human traits. Most consider population structure a nuisance parameter ? something to be avoided and corrected for. However, our work with AIMs shows that our struggle against common, complex disease and drug response (and even to solve those common traits that make us unique) can be had through a fine appreciation of population structure, which in turn can only be had through the measurement of the AIMs such as those we have filed patent for. These are the best, most significant AIMs in the human genome ? and as a DNAPrint investor, you own this patent (congratulations!).
Marketing Plan for MALD/AM screening services.
Rather than manufacture a MALD/AM screening kit, and enabling the world with our technology, we plan to keep the technology closely guarded. This will help us maximize near-term revenues from the property, and make us an attractive collaborator for larger companies that want access to the property. The MALD/AM screening collaborations will be partnered to pharmaceutical companies, academic labs and government institutions and foundation. Each partner would be required to pay DNAPrint for the expense of the admixture mapping screen, which would bring DNAPrint about $200,000 in revenues for each partner. To cover basic, non-consumables operating expenses we only need two of these contracts per year! But it gets better - by being the only company in the world than can perform cost-efficient pan-genome screening, we are in a position to also require a share of the intellectual property our customers pay us to develop.
The partner gains access to our AIM panel and our expertise, which they cannot obtain elsewhere. We gain revenues to support the screen, and significant ownership of the genes identified. Many of the disease genes we discover will constitute valuable drug targets for the pharmaceutical industry. If drugs are developed to just one or two of these, the rewards could be substantial. Many of the drug response markers we identify will constitute the core of predictive prescription tests bringing additional down-stream revenues. Remember, our model is not to be a contract research organization, but a "fountain" of intellectual property for genomics-based medicine. With this plan, we expect to take maximum advantage of our monopolistic position. In short, this is a significant component to our plan to help us grow your investment in the future of genomics based medicine.
To learn more about the Admixture mapping methods, please refer to the publications listed below. Thanks for taking the time to learn more about your company and I look forward to the next newsletter.
Respectively,
Tony
Chakraborty, R. and K. Weiss. 1988. PNAS 85: 9119-9123.
Stephens J.C. Briscoe, D., and O'Brien, S.J. 1994. AJHG 55: 908-924.
McKeigue, P.M. 1998. AJHG 63:241-251.
McKeigue, P.M., et al., 2000. Ann. Hum. Genet. 64:171-186.
The new newsletter # 2
(cut and paste from PDF e-mail attachment)
Dear Shareholders,
I am happy to send you our second company newsletter. First, let me say that I consider DNAPrint?s scientific achievements thus far to be a great success. Rest assured, however, that our efforts are just beginning. We have written, applied and patented some of the most algorithmically complex and advanced genomics data analysis programs on the planet. In one year, these algorithms have helped us solve genetic problems (such as variable human iris color) that had perplexed geneticists for decades. I believe that your investment has helped create a formidable player in the genomics based testing market.
The Company has seen many developments since our last newsletter. We have changed the composition of our Board, announced several new scientific partners, and announced the discovery of three new forensics classifiers and their imminent product launches. We have also achieved a significant equipment upgrade that reduced our overhead and accelerated our throughput - at no cost to us. Further, we announced our foray into commercial genotyping, which we expect will help establish a revenue base upon which to grow. I will discuss some of these items one by one:
RETINOME - We have announced our intention to have either a beta trial or a partnership with a large company in place by the end of the year. This is an important part of our business strategy you should understand. We would prefer to partner our products with capable partners so we can devote ourselves to discovery and grow our revenue base more rapidly. However, if we cannot obtain satisfactory terms from a prospective partner, we will market a given test ourselves. This would provide us more profit from each test, but would increase product development costs and reduce the number of tests we could develop. We are currently in discussions with four large corporations to help us commercialize this test.
On a different note, my recent Washington D.C. presentation for RETINOME was very well received. In fact, I sensed that people are shocked that such a small company could do what we have done. Realize that RETINOME is the first complex genetics classifier to be presented in the post human genome age. Larger companies with more resources have yet to announce such a development - some have announced SNPs or haplotype associations, but we are the first to present a complex genetics classifier that performs well upon blind challenge. This bodes very well for our ability to make drug classifiers since most of these will also be complex! As we have always maintained, the key is our math.
OVANOME - Earlier this year, our University of Miami collaborators and I presented the results of our Ovarian Cancer pharmacogenomics study at the Society of Gynecological Oncology Miami and at BIOIT Boston. Our study is unique because we are focused on the variable response to firstline treatment (a pharmacokinetic problem, not a tumor genetics problem). To my knowledge, we are the only company with successful results there. We have applied for an NIH grant to fund a prospective trial at Miami, the data from which will go into an FDA application so that we could be approved to sell the kits. Until this process is complete, we will offer Taxol genotyping services (preferably through a licensee), which are not subject to FDA regulation. This brings up a second point that you should understand about our drug classifier strategy (as opposed to our forensics test strategy). For each kit we produce, there will be a service phase and a supply phase. Making an FDA approved kit (i.e., the supply phase) is more profitable, but it takes time to get kits approved by the FDA. So, until we receive FDA approval for our drug classification kits, we will perform services using our kits ourselves (i.e., the service phase). Companies like Myriad Genetics have had great success performing genetics testing services. In the case of the Taxol classifier, our licensees and affiliates will begin performing classifications for prospective Taxol patients at the University of Miami while we compile the FDA application. We will add future customer sites based on customer satisfaction at the primary sites, and we hope that word of mouth will travel fast since peoples? lives are at stake. We believe that this service/supply commercialization model will help us maximize return on investment.
OTHER TESTS - We have finished both the genotyping and the computational screening for Lipitor and Zocor, and we have finished the genotyping but not the computational screening for about 15 other drugs we have good sample sizes for. As we complete these projects, we will disclose the results within a formal, peer-reviewed setting such as a professional meeting or in the scientific literature.
SNPs - From a screen of thousands of SNPs, we have settled on a panel of 346 SNPs in about 50 xenobiotic metabolism genes for our pharmacogenomics screening. These SNPs have good characteristics (minor allele frequencies) for the sample sizes we employ - which mean they are of potentially good statistical use. Validated SNP panels like this one, of potential statistical value, are not easy to find and impossible to purchase - the chip-based sets available commercially typically apply onlyto a few cytochrome P450s, but our set covers 50 genes. We are quite proud of this panel.
ACADEMIC DEALS - We have inked new deals with the New York University and Penn State University, and added a world-renowned geneticist to our Scientific Advisory Board. These agreements supplement our existing agreement with the University of Miami. The fact that some of the nation?s leading medical universities want to work with DNAPrint speaks highly of our science.
CORPORATE - Earlier in the year, we changed the composition of our board of directors. Our new board members are providing top-notch advice and are prospecting for new deals and corporate investors. To help with this, we have consulted with professionals to greatly simplify and update our business/marketing plan. Our existing $2M funding source for the next year or so has so far been quite reliable (about $650,000 of it has so far been funded). I think it reflects favorably on our company that friends, officers and directors prefer to fund it rather than offer the opportunity to an outside venture group. We are currently evaluating and planning for our research needs after the existing funding term, and we will continue discussing this topic in the upcoming months.
OTHER ITEMS - So far, we have filed for a total of 8 patents - 5 mathematical methods/software patents and 3 classifier patents. Four of these have been converted to date to regular utility patent applications, the other four are to be converted within the year. We add data to each provisional over the course of time to make it as strong as possible before converting it. The patent process is an ongoing process, of course, as they naturally flow from our work here. The patents filed here at DNAPrint are my life's greatest scientific achievements, by far. Mostly because of the challenging level on which the work has been performed, I find them more rewarding than others I have been involved with in the past. We have written 2 scientific manuscripts and are writing a third. For products that may be partnered, the publication dates are set through the process of negotiation (i.e. we are not a University and we do not rush to publish everything we have as soon as we have it.). We have 4 grant applications pending at present and 2 more in preparation.
While we cannot control the financial markets or the financial performance of our partners, we can control the quality of work we do. We believe our share price will ultimately reflect this quality, in addition to the quality of our business decisions. Keep in mind, however, that our aim is to build a company for the long term. I know most of you are long-term investors, and it is with your interests in mind that we shape every decision made here. I think we have performed well to date and I hope you agree.
Until the next newsletter then,
Respectfully,
Tony
Dnap's Statnome info. -
From 10Ksb 4-15-2003
Statnome. Statnome is the product we are developing in conjunction with a group of Jacksonville physicians to classify patients as adverse responders or good responders to a class of drugs called statins. Hypercholesterolemic and dyslipidemic patients are at increased risk for heart disease. Currently, these patients are prescribed medications, nicknamed "statins," to reduce this risk.Statins function to decrease cholesterol levels by inhibiting a key enzyme in the cholesterol pathway. According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's National Cholesterol Education Program,
high cholesterol is one of the key risk factors for heart disease.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, and more than 90 million American adults, or about 50 percent of the population, have elevated blood cholesterol levels.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September 1998 says heart disease deaths have declined steadily over the last 30 years, decreasing by 10.3 percent between 1990 and 1994 alone. This
improvement is largely attributable to better prevention of heart disease through the widespread use of statins.
Notwithstanding the efficacy of this class of drugs, individual patients respond differently to statins. About 2-5% of patients are discontinued from statin treatment due to adverse experiences including hepatocellular toxicity (indicated by elevated serum levels of certain liver enzymes), and more rarely, acute renal failure. In
fact, it is recommended that physicians monitor this toxicity by performing liver function tests prior to, and at 12 weeks following,both the initiation of therapy and any elevation of dose, and periodically thereafter. As a recent Time magazine article points out,statins may potentially serve as a useful preventative tool to reduce
the risk of heart disease in the general, healthy population. A key impediment for the expansion of the statin market in this way is the danger posed by adverse events associated with use of these drugs. For example, the long-term effects of hepatocellular injury are not
clearly understood.
The Statnome product(s) could help reduce the risk associated with the use of statins in the general population. The Company expects its Statin project to result in several "diagnomics" test solutions for
routine patient pre-screening prior to statin prescription. Based on the prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypercholesteremia in the population, such a product could enjoy entry into a market in excess of several billion dollars (drug sales). At present our scientists have completed the screen of the xenobiotic genome for the Statnome project and are validating the performance of the resulting classifier.
***************************************************************************************
10k;
At present our scientists have completed the screen of the xenobiotic genome for the Statnome project and are validating the performance of the resulting classifier.
...and this:
Thus, the Company has scaled back its sample collection efforts and is focusing on validating its Statin prediction product (STATNOME) and building a market for and completing its DNA Witness 2.0 line of forensic products. Pending the acquisition of investment funding or the realization of profits from product sales, DNAPrint intends to resume previous rates of collection for its various developmental stage pharmacogenomics projects.
*************************************************************************************************
From the first Newsletter:
OTHER TESTS - We have finished both the genotyping and the computational screening for Lipitor and Zocor, and we have finished the genotyping but not the computational screening for about 15 other drugs we have good sample sizes for. As we complete these projects, we will disclose the results within a formal, peer-reviewed setting such as a professional meeting or in the scientific literature.
*************************************************************************************************
Sept. 23, 2002--DNAPrint genomics, Inc. (OTCBB:DNAP - News) announced on Friday successful results from its ongoing research into the genetic basis for variable Statin response. The results were presented to an audience of health care professionals at the 7th Annual Disease Management Congress in Chicago, IL.
CEO Dr. Tony Frudakis described Company research that has resulted in the identification of certain gene variants associated with and predictive for Statin response. Statins are a class of drugs used to treat lipid disorders and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Largely due to patient genetics, about 25% of patients fail to respond positively to any given Statin, but those that fail to respond to one often respond to another. The findings are the result of a two-year study that focused on 575 patients and seven different clinical measures of response. Using proprietary screening methods, Company scientists were able to identify an unexpectedly large number of variants linked to response. Those associated with response to standard doses of Artorvastatin (sold under the trade name Lipitor by Pfizer, NYSE:PFE) were generally different from those associated with response to standard doses of Simvistatin (sold under the trade name Zocor by Merck, NYSE:MRK), and those predictive for efficacy (how well the drug does its job) were different from those predictive of adverse events such as early stage hepatocellular toxicity (liver stress) or myalgia (muscle pain). The research condensed mathematical encodings for these variants, which the Company calls "eigengenotypes", into a complex genetics classifier capable of explaining almost all of the observed variability in response. Details on how the "eigengenotypes" were measured and computed, or from what genes they are derived were not presented.
The results were described as the fabric for a new genomics test, called STATNOME(TM), which the Company intends to market to the managed health care industry. By allowing physicians to match patients with the Statin most appropriate for their genetic constitution, STATNOME(TM) could enable a dramatic enhancement the therapeutic benefit of this class of drugs. The Company hopes that STATNOME(TM) will reduce the need for frequent follow up visits to the doctors office, obviate an entire menu of clinical tests for monitoring Statin response and reduce the waste that comes from giving medicines to people who are genetically incapable of responding to them. In so doing, the new test could help managed care providers save thousands of dollars per patient, while at the same time, treat their patients more effectively.
Until the tests are manufactured and distributed, Dr. Frudakis explained that the Company plans to exclusively provide STATNOME(TM) classification services for early clinical adopters and progressive patients. The commencement of this service would be announced at a later date. He also outlined Company plans to begin offering services based on the OVANOME(TM) test, which was introduced by the Company last year as the world's first genomics-based test for flagging patients who are incompatible with paclataxel and carboplatin combination chemotherapy (which is the current FDA approved first-line therapy for ovarian cancer; paclitaxel is sold under the trade name Taxol and carboplatin is sold under the trade name Paraplatin, both are manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb, NYSE:BMY). The commencement of STATNOME(TM) and OVANOME(TM) services would make DNAPrint the only laboratory in the world using internally-developed, wholly owned and drug-specific classifiers for the individualization of drug treatment. The tests would be among the very first genomics-based tests ever applied before routine drug use, or for any other clinical practice.
The STATNOME(TM) test could have significant implications for the safety and effectiveness of Artorvastatin and Simvistatin, which combine to serve a $12 billion annual market projected to grow to $20 billion by 2003. Though generally well tolerated, adverse events associated with the use of Statins have recently begun to receive widespread attention. Recently Bayer (NYSE:BAY - News) was forced to pull their Statin "Baycol" from the market due to a fatal response linked to muscle damage and myalgia. Though myalgia is reversible, like hepatocellular toxicity, it is part of a continuum of pathology that leads physicians to switch treatments. By flagging the genetically incompatible before treatment, the Company hopes that STATNOME(TM) will help minimize the negative impact of this widely used class of drugs and change the "trial and error" mentality of today's drug prescription process. In addition, STATNOME(TM) could help expand the market for Statins, many of which are already considered "blockbuster" drugs. For example, Statins are usually given to patients that have a lipid condition that can lead to cardiovascular disease, but there are an estimated 30 million healthy people in the US who are at risk of developing this condition for whom Statins would serve as an effective prophylactic. Mainly due to side effects, and the cost of monitoring these side effects, the cost/impact and risk/reward values for a healthy person at risk of developing a lipid disorder is less desirable than that for the already afflicted. As a result, Statins are still not used in the healthy population. By accurately flagging those who would develop an adverse reaction to them before the drug is given, STATNOME(TM) could someday help Statins overcome this barrier for more widespread use.
*************************************************************************************************Some of the Statinome drugs DNAP is reviewing...01-01-02
Baycol........>now banned by the FDA for high risks involved.
Lescol
Lipitor
Lopid
Mevacor
Niacin
Niaspan
Pravachol
Zocor
http://www.dnaprint.com/bioform.pdf
*************************************************************************************************
From the shareholders meeting March, 2003 -Reported by worktoplay - post# 232636
Ovanome is about a year from market, and DNAP anticipates marketing through a partner. I asked if Statnome was similarly a year out, and the response surprised me. Tony indicated that Statnome would be marketed sooner and the marketing would be handled by DNAP. Obviously, the company is anticipating a much larger market for the Statin classifers which would make it cost effective to run the samples on the UHT.
*************************************************************************************************
AncestryByDNA 3.0
As far an AncestryByDNA is concerned, we know from a previous press release about the scope of this product:
"DNAPrint scientists are collaborating with Dr. Shriver to develop more advanced versions of ANCESTRYbyDNA that may be useful for discerning regional heritage proportions in individuals. For example, ANCESTRYbyDNA 3.0 is expected to be capable in the near future of determining whether an individual is of Irish/British, Middle European (French, German), Scandinavian, Mediterranean (Italian, Greek, Spanish) or Eastern European heritage as well as of Western/Central versus East African heritage or of Japanese, Chinese or Korean heritage."
There are some comments by Tony Frudakis, and others, that appeared on the RootsWeb threads about AncestryByDNA 3.0 in April that tell us a little more about the product:
Yesterday you made a number of references to the Version 3.0 of the DNAPrint test; and similarly there is mention of it in the FAQ section of your website. If it possible at this point to reveal to us what is in the works - in other words what will this test do that Version 2.0 cannot? For example, will it differentiate between European populations and those from, say, Pakistan? Will you be able to separate Koreans from Polynesians or will the latter remain with their "parental stock"? Are there any "ancestral informative markers" that could differentiate between Italians (i.e., Mediterranean populations) from Norwegians (i.e., Nordic populations). I am sure that I can come up with a lot more questions, but the bottom line is, what are you able to say about the new version of the test at present?
Yes, that is the end goal - intracontinental resolution. Chinese from Japanese among East Asians for example, or Scandinavian from Mediterranean from Indo-Pakistani for example within the IndoEuropean group.
Ancestrybydna 3.0 would need to be a DNA chip based product.
3.0 will be able to resolve between intracontinental groups, such as Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Pacific Islander etc. within the East Asian group. A much larger collection of markers will be needed to do this and the test will necessarily be more expensive. We know these markers exist, and we know a reasonable test can be developed to do this, we just havent finished the work yet but we are working on it. Given the larger number of markers that need to be screened from the genome, a DNA chip based approach is needed which is similar to the approach we now use, but we can cover more ground in a shorter period of time with the chip. Its a technical thing - dont worry about it. Suffice it to say, we need to screen much more of the genome to find these rare markers...
Basically, the allele frequencies for some of the Japanese vs. Chinese markers will he high, and for others low. Finding these markers among the 30,000 or so Ancestry Informative Markers in the human genome is the challenge we at DNAPrint face, but once they are found, they will work exactly as the current set do.
BTW, I notice that Tony has stopped subscribing to the RootsWeb threads. I must say I do not blame him. There are some nonsensical converations there about the Ancestry test, some axes being well and truly ground, and pretty obvious agendas from some of the regular (dare I say, to borrow a word, "purist") contributors. Here are a couple of interesting quotes from Tony:
Nonetheless there will probably be a "wrong" result reported on some board like this, or in one of the more left leaning newspapers somewhere in the country. How? There is a contingent of "scientists" who are more politicians than scientists, and who do not practice pan-genome screening, who feel our test is immoral and politically unwise, so do not be surprised if one of them "takes" the test and "reports" completely bogus answers. The reason that this is just going to be a matter of time is that some of these people have already said things in the media (to PBS) that are not direct lies but that are very clear attempts to obfuscate the fact that biogeographical ancestry is written in the DNA - they know it is but they do not want tests like ours being sold so to them the means (lying) justifies the end (what they think will be more harmony and world peace) . If they will lie on TV to the American Public, they will lie to make their point.
Anyone that says our results are not accurate for minor ancestry either continues to fail to understand the mathematical and molecular biological foundation of the test or does not want to understand. Possibly, there is a personal agenda that is being tended to. A test dealing with "race" is sure to stir up the activist in some people...." For example, if ours was a test for tuberculosis that was accurate for detecting low levels of TB within a few percent, would there be so much obstinance from people to accept the results from such a test? No. It would be used, and used to the benefit of those it was used on! It is simply because this test deals with race that people (some from exceedingly "activist" oriented colleges or places) refuse to accept our test.
Just came on board,good to be here. Raging Bull has to many bashers pluss web site problems. Nice to see some of the longs from raging Bull here.