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.
Sorry, but you will either trust what I read or enjoy sorting it out yourself. To make it easier, you can use the document's search engine and look for IL-12 so that you can be better informed after reading as much as you can on the subject and eventually you will find it.
Ofcourse, if you don't want to Google it, I will posted for you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3867255/
The following is actually from an abstract titled "Targeting tumor-infiltrating macrophages to combat cancer" which you can read to better answer your question.
The rationale for the scientific foundation is stated as follow:
"Certain breast cancers produce CSF-1, which promote macrophage infiltration and M2 differentiation. High Th2 CD4+ T cells with low CD8+ T cells results in a protumoral environment with increased metastatic risk. Interactions between M2 macrophages and MDSCs lead to high levels of IL-10 and low levels of IL-12, further reinforcing the M2 phenotype and increasing levels of Th2-type CD4+ T cells. These CD4+ T cells produce IL-4, which also polarizes macrophages toward M2, creating a feedback loop. Meanwhile, CD8+ T cells are suppressed, resulting in an overall immune-permissive environment for tumor growth and spread."
This is exactly what Dr. Pierce has stated that can be possible with ImmunoPulse of IL-12, and it has been proven with both the MCC study and the Melanoma study by the increase of TIL's.
Thank You Twiz. I am not sure if the following link has been posted here before, but if not, it is a great article about Dr. Nghiem's and Dr. Bhatia's recent abstracts on Merkel Cell Carcinoma and how it is responding to immunotherapy. It was recently presented at the 2015 European Cancer Congress in which the doctors explained the rationale of why their approach requires further exploration of MCC in combination with systemic therapies such as anti PD-1/PD-L1 agents.
http://www.edermatologynews.com/specialty-focus/skin-cancers-and-neoplasms/single-article-page/merkel-cell-carcinoma-responds-to-immunotherapy/4aeec971cb9bdf660d9a48b81526dc9b.html
The rationale for combining CSF-1 and Keytruda include:
1. Multiple mechanisms of action: CSF-1 inhibition blocks invasion and metastases of cancer cells, while Keytruda prevents the abrogation of the immune attack on cancer cells;
2. Complementary actions in heterotypic cellular interactions in the cancer micro-environment: CSF-1 inhibits the function of MDSCs, a subset of heterogeneous bone marrow-derived hematopoietic cells that are found in the peripheral blood of cancer patients and positively correlate to malignancy. Solid tumors contain MDSCs that maintain an immune-suppressive network in the tumor microenvironment. So, Keytruda and CSF-1 may act in a complementary fashion in restoring cancer immunity.
For example, certain breast cancers produce CSF-1, which promote macrophage infiltration and M2 differentiation. High Th2 CD4+ T cells with low CD8+ T cells results in a protumoral environment with increased metastatic risk. Interactions between M2 macrophages and MDSCs lead to high levels of IL-10 and low levels of IL-12, further reinforcing the M2 phenotype and increasing levels of Th2-type CD4+ T cells. These CD4+ T cells produce IL-4, which also polarizes macrophages toward M2, creating a feedback loop. Meanwhile, CD8+ T cells are suppressed, resulting in an overall immune-permissive environment for tumor growth and spread. So basically an increase in level of IL-12 will be needed for the CSF-1 Inhibitor PLX3397 combination with Keytruda to work for multiple cancers.
Coincidently on May 2015, Merck entered into collaboration with Plexxikon to combine PLX3397 with its PD-1 antibody, Keytruda, after Oncosec and UCSF had decided to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the combination of Keytruda with ImmunoPulse IL-12 in metastatic melanoma.
Oh, ok, for a moment I thought they were going to take the money and run. Other than that, everything else is good though.
I wonder why another known institution decided to open a small amount of investment into Oncosec. Must be that they need money and Vanguard is willing to lend a helping hand for free. All I know is that the quaterly report has become more professional and a lot more explanatory. It is some what comforting knowing that a conference will take place every quater, giving updates of the job at hand. Notice how detailed was Dr. Pierce's explanation of the proof to their hypothesis. First time that they actually sounded convincing.
The statement was that financial institutes that joined in June had recently open small positions to maybe add larger ones some time in the future, in case the science is proven. I never referred to that as being meaningful. However, the fact that there are 14 new positions, when just months ago there were none, says that Oncosec is on their radar. But again, those positions are very small and it won’t mean anything until results of Keytruda for non-responders come out. They will find out about results before the public does, behind close doors over an expensive lunch meeting.
“technically this was a public offering but it was a Reg Direct, which is a bit of a hybrid.”
What is your point? Sorry, but I am not following and you seem confused about a registered direct offering.
The last offering Oncosec made was a “Direct Public” offering which is similar to an initial public offering (IPO) in that stock is sold to investors, but unlike an IPO, a company uses a DPO to raise capital directly and without a firm underwriting from an investment banking firm or broker-dealer. The reason why it was a Registered Direct is because Oncosec was entering the Nasdaq, so they skipped the use of an underwriter and saved some money, but it is still considered a public offering.
These are long term tutes, as you call them, that joined on June. Bank of America, BlackRock, UBS Group, Citigroup, none of them are going anywhere any time soon, when they just recently open small positions to hopefully add onto in the future.
Institutional investors face fewer protective regulations because it is assumed that they are more knowledgeable and better able to protect themselves. Shorting a stock is one of their favorite methods for assuring some protection.
Unfortunately Institutional Investors are needed for offerings to take place. There are two ways this can be accomplish, through a private placement or a public offering. Oncosec has had both types of funding rounds of securities, but the last two has been public. The Sec Ruling applies to public offerings which in the last two affected Oncosec, since both times the price did drop ahead of the filing. This happens all of the time with every other company that needs financial assistance and resorts to a public offering. It is a common practice that follows and even more common tactic of shorting a stock. That is one of the reasons I don’t agree with shorting, because it is used to manipulate the price in order to steal shares from honest investors. Shorting stocks defeats the purpose of growth and such practice lends itself for abusing the market.
The new Rule 105 violations is a good start for addressing such problems, however, a combined total of $2.5 million in disgorgement, interest, and penalties between 6 major financial institutional investors is like peanuts, compared to all the money stolen.
of course, which is why I think they have a great chance at improving Keytruda. Looking at past studies done for Interleukin-12, which is extremely toxic, it makes me think of Keytruda's side effects. Oncosec has removed all the toxicity from the dangerous but very much needed IL-12 cytokine, allowing its used to raise TIL's while lowering tumor inflammation. And who better to do it, if not the same doctor that began Keytruda.
I think it wont happen until they validate the improvement of a marketed drug like Keytruda. They already showed the improvement of an interleukin, so I would not doubt it will be possible. But when they do, that's when the race will begin.
and how long would that take? You will probably think faster than Oncosec, but if it validates the science I am ok with it.
yes, if that's what needs to be done. However, the Patent that Oncosec owns wont change and that is what makes up the ImmunoPulse platform. They will license that platform to anyone that wants to use it in combination with their drug, as will be the case with Merck and Keytruda. I imagine that is the main reason why Merck decided not to take part in the P2b trial. Oncosec will not be selling a drug or an Interleukin since they actually have a license from the company that produces it. Therefore, the money will come from the device itself and its use through a license agreement.
Ridiculous you say, but the Patent has a total of 19 claims, which covers just about everything, in order to have to start from scratch and invent a new device if they want to sell a similar device before the Patent’s allowance is terminated. Coincidently Sheela Mohan-Peterson was promoted afterwards.
Some of the invention claims are being proven by their ongoing clinical trials. For example:
-the electric field is maintained substantially within a predetermined range.
-the electric field is maintained to about 1300 V/cm.
-the power supply is configured to reduce the output power in response to a reduced cover area of the electrodes.
-the power supply is configured to increase the output power in response to an increased cover area of the electrodes.
-the power supply is configured to maintain the electric field within a predetermined range so as to prevent damage in the cells within the cover area.
-the power supply is configured to maintain the electrical field within a predetermined range so as to substantially minimize pain.
-the power supply provides a first electrical signal to a first electrode and a second electrical signal to a second electrode, wherein the first and second electrical signals combine to produce a wave having a beat frequency, and wherein the first and second electrical signals each have at least one of a unipolar waveform and a bipolar waveform.
-the first electrical signal has a first frequency and a first amplitude, wherein the second electrical signal has a second frequency and a second amplitude, wherein the first frequency is different from or the same as the second frequency, and wherein the first amplitude is different from or the same as the second amplitude.
-the potentiometer is configured to maintain the electric field to about 1300 V/cm.
-the power supply provides a first electrical signal to a first electrode and a second electrical signal to a second electrode, wherein the first and second electrical signals combine to produce a wave having a beat frequency, and wherein the first and second electrical signals each have at least one of a unipolar waveform and a bipolar waveform.
-the first electrical signal has a first frequency and a first amplitude, wherein the second electrical signal has a second frequency and a second amplitude, wherein the first frequency is different from or the same as the second frequency, and wherein the first amplitude is different from or the same as the second amplitude.
got it, so yes, that belongs to University of South Florida. Therefore, what Oncosec is planning to do in the future is to license the ImmunoPulse platform which might be utilized with different Interleukins in combination with a drug, in different parts of the body and for all types of cancers.
I am not talking about the combination study, I am only referring to the ImmunoPulse platform and its use of IL-12. The combination study obviously has more than one license involved, since Keytruda belongs to Merck and the study is being conducted and payed for by USCF, with the use of a Patent that belongs to the University of South Florida and the use of an electroporation device, which Oncosec owns the Patent for the specific voltage and outcome.
yes, and like I wrote earlier, it is being used by Oncosec though a license agreement, and they do not own a patent specifically for its use, since it has been around and studied for many years already. Notice that Oncosec has recently trademarked the name ImmunoPulse but it does not include IL-12. Oncosec's goal is to use the ImmunoPulse platform with many other drugs and other types of Interleukins like IL-15, which it has already secured the license again from the University of South Florida, who owns both Patents for the electroporation use of IL-12 and IL-15.
The Patent 9020605, granted to Punit on April 28, 2015 shows that the present invention is directed to an electroporation device comprising an applicator, a plurality of electrodes extending from the applicator, a power supply in electrical communication with the electrodes, and a guide member coupled to the electrodes. It does not mention IL-12 at all, so you are correct.
Such invention is directed to the method of electroporating cells using an electroporation device. However, it has been observed that the higher the impedance, the greater the pain. Therefore, there is a need in the art for an electoporation device that delivers a strong enough pulse for delivering an agent for treatment, but prevents pain due to cell structure impedance. The Punit’s Patent has secured such device with the correct amount of voltage needed, by maintaining the electric field to about 1300 V/cm, which is what Oncosec has already proven in their trials. No other such device can be produced with the same voltage or output.
I understand what you are trying to point out, however, the drug does not belong to Oncosec. Therefore, they would get more from the use of the Patent by licensing the device alone. As a matter of fact, the latest Patent received by Dhillon this year only secures such device without the inclusion of IL-12. The Patent from Dhillon is for a device that has the correct amount of voltage needed, by maintaining the electric field to about 1300 V/cm without pain or side effects, which is what Oncosec has already proven in their trials.
The following is from September 2012 when Oncosec first received the license to use the electroporation device from University of South Florida.
"OncoSec’s proprietary gene and drug delivery platform, the OncoSec Medical System (OMS) electroporation device, is currently being used to develop the company’s ImmunoPulse and NeoPulse therapies. This platform encompasses patents, technology and other intellectual property for intratumoral methods for delivering drugs and gene-based treatments in humans.
ImmunoPulse involves the application of a brief electric field to the surface of the skin. This temporarily opens pores in the cell membrane, allowing anti-cancer agent DNA IL-12, to be absorbed more efficiently. DNA IL-12, which normally has difficulty penetrating the tumor cell membrane to get inside these cells, has been shown to significantly stimulate the immune system’s T-cells to fight the cancer. The new license from USFRF complements OncoSec’s seminal patents, particularly for the protection of the methods involved in the ImmunoPulse treatment, and specifically for the use of DNA IL-12."
I understand what the ImmunoPulse Platform is, and as a matter of fact speaking of the drug, Oncosec has an exclusive cGMP manufacturing agreement with VGXI Inc. for the production of interleukin-12 plasmid DNA. Financial terms of such agreement are not disclosed. The exclusive agreement is significant for OncoSec because it leverages VGXI’s expertise for large-scale process development and clinical manufacturing for interleukin-12 for use in OncoSec’s ElectroImmunotherapy program. Therefore, the drug will be sold and the apparatus will be licensed.
What is interesting is not knowing the difference of both at this stage in their development. One is a drug and the other is an apparatus. The drug would be sold and the apparatus can either be rented out through a license or sold. The patent usually gives the maker exclusivity that prevents competition for 20 years from when the patent is issued. So either way, it is very important for the company to own the patent.
Thank you Jbem for the response, your straight forwardness is appreciated. I agree about not shorting, because it just doesn’t feel as good and it does not help to develop some of that critical thinking that you are referring to. Even though the tactic is needed for the market, it is not productive for the economy. I also agree about Punit Dhillon’s past mistakes due to his lack of experience and how it has affected the company. If Dr. Pierce would have begun with the company from day one, a lot of wasted time and money could have been avoided. By the same token, that lack of experience is what attracted Dhillon to Dr. Pierce and recently to Dr. Meininger, which in turn has attracted me to the science of the company. I am a true believer of evolving technology, and the opening of cells to penetrate a smaller amount of a toxic drug in order to achieve greater results just makes a lot of sense. But like you have said, only time will tell if Oncosec is worth the investment. In the meantime, I also appreciate the information you have provided me from other opportunities.
Good trading to you as well.
Jbem, don’t mean to join in the conversation, but I do have a question that I cannot ask Punit but you. First of all, thank you for the information about the hedge fund managers that own shares of ONCS. A short time ago, Oncosec did not have any of those types of followers. I do believe that there was a slight delay of the trial due to lack of patients, which might be understandable, because it is a very selective trial being run and UCSF is a hospital that has many other options for those types of cancer patients. With time against them, most of the qualified patients were most likely already enrolled in some other trial. In addition, it is a sponsored study being conducted by UCSF, which saves Oncosec money but with consequences, since there is very little urgency towards Oncosec by the doctors and hospital.
So getting to my question, you said it is foolish for Lasers to ask for a link, but it seems more foolish to follow a turd of a company by having lengthy conversations with a large investment firm about Punit and now here at Ihub. It seems you have a different agenda, which is understandable, since you dislike the company and the science behind it. But why always conclude your opinion with a statement about the share price going sub $1 and minutes later to sub $2. That sounds like you have a target price on ONCS, which again it is understandable. But I do not think it is because you want to buy into the company, but rather buy to cover a position. That brings me back to where your conspiracy theory conversation first began, in which you gave out some very good points for your reasoning to probably being short and I thank you for that. However, the lack of sells in shares from last week would make any of the shorts that participated on the last sell off very uncomfortable. Does this conversation have anything to do with covering? Because if it does not, than that would make it seem very foolish.
Let's get a straight evaluation for the risk, since the one trick pony that you are referring to can be utilize in many ways if successful. Once the clinical trial is completed, the share price would eventually drop below a dollar if combination with Keytruda fails. But if results are positive, it will likely rise well above $12, and at the present $4 share price for Oncosec the risk would be of -75% vs. 200% in favor of the upside.
If $2 is your evaluation of a bargain for Oncosec, that would place the company at a 500% increase in the upside once results are released and are positive, even though they would still be without a product in the market. That's a pretty good deal if reachable, since the downside risk for negative results would only be at a 50% loss. That is not considered a bargain but a steal.
The last point of reference for an evaluation is at the 68 million market cap with its last offering. At the time, the investment company felt that a 20% discount was fair and now basically everyone can get the same discount. That would put the estimate share price at $4.40 which can be considered a fair value according to Sabby Investments. Keep in mind, the one trick pony that might come to market before 2019 will be worth a lot more, which adds value to the risk. On the other hand, the share price can go as low as $2 for Oncosec, but I do not think that a back to back reverse split within a 4 year period is in their future, no matter how many times they need to dilute before getting their product to the market. Those two factors will help evaluate the risk.
I clearly said “expenses will be increased significantly on the upcoming quarterly report”, which means the $4 million referenced was only to show how the Nasdaq viewed financially the company in the past, since no one has the exact number yet. I do agree that cash in hand is a fair evaluation for a small new company with no revenue, but this is the stock market and the risk also has a price. How much is the science worth to you is my question. You might say nothing, but it should have a price, else it would not belong in the Nasdaq. Now add that to the cash at hand and you will get a real fair market cap.
you say that Oncosec is "over valued at 50 Mil market cap. 25 Mil is more reasonable"
So according to you, Oncosec's market cap amount should be equal to the $25 million of cash and cash equivalents given by their last quarterly report. However, at the time the report was released, the market cap was priced at 80 million. From your estimate, it would mean that Oncosec has lost 70% of its market cap in one quarter and is left with only $7 million in the bank to conduct business. That is impossible, since on that same 10-Q report, the company showed a loss of $12 million in Net cash for a period of nine months, which means per quarter they spent $4 million in cash. I do agree that expenses will be increased significantly on the upcoming quarterly report, due to new salaries and a higher rent, but not by 70% as you are advising.
Lasers, evidence that the ORR of the combination trial has not been provided, however, Dr. Pierce has presented evidence of raising TILs that might assist Keytruda into helping non responders. For that reason, the combination trial will be for patients with low TIL melanoma, who probably would not respond to Keytruda, and therefore the ORR of the Combo will not need to be greater than Keytruda alone. If it is, then Oncosec will have the upper hand in any deal.
thanks Zoriden, I find it interesting that ever since Dr. Pierce got on board, Oncosec has tried to be one step ahead of the market when it comes to new approaches in Immunotherapy. The following is from a medical review on a study of the effect of electroporation on cardiac electrophysiology.
In the review, evidence was presented that electroporation of the heart tissue can occur during clinically relevant intensities of the external electrical field and that electroporation can affect the outcome of defibrillation therapy, being both pro- and antiarrhythmic. Here, we present experimental evidence for electroporation in cardiac tissue, which occurs above a threshold of 25 V/cm as evident from propidium iodide uptake, transient diastolic depolarization, and reductions of action potential amplitude and its derivative. These electrophysiological changes can induce tachyarrhythmia, due to conduction block and possibly triggered activity; however, our findings provide the foundation for future design of effective methods to deliver genes and drugs to cardiac tissues, while avoiding possible side effects such as arrhythmia and mechanical stunning.
I follow companies and not message boards. At the time I am with Oncosec and it is a good time for me to be on board. But what I really don't need is to be on this board. Good bye and good luck in whatever you do.
you read my question, once I get the answer you will get your question answered back.
please, would someone explain why bother replying an informative answer to someone's post when it will be removed. If it is because I should not use this website, I am okay with that, but I think that an explanation would be nice.
Thank You.
Tomorrow at the Inaugural International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference: Translating Science into Survival, Dr. Vonderheide will be presenting on the topic of hTERT and IL-12 DNA immunotherapy using electroporation in patients with breast, lung, or pancreatic cancer.
The study is being done by Dr. Robert H. Vonderheide and sponsored by Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, using INO-1400 alone or in combination with INO-9012. Inovio’s INO-9012 is a dual promoter plasmid encoding human IL-12 and their INO-1400 is a plasmid encoding hTERT. According to Dr. Vonderheide, electroporation can be used to optimally and safely deliver DNA in vivo by creating a transient electric field to enhance the cellular uptake of large molecules such as DNA. Addition of IL-12 to hTERT significantly enhanced immune responses in preclinical models. We hypothesized that generation of robust T-cell immunity by immunotherapy with hTERT + IL-12 can be clinically used to reduce the risk of relapse in high-risk cancer patients in the adjuvant setting. An abstract of pre-clinical results were recently shown at ASCO 2015 which backs up the hypothesis.
Other similar presentations include:
Enhanced IL-12 production and T cell stimulation ability by dendritic cells matured in presence of GMP-grade Toll-like receptor ligands and IFN-?.
Demonstration of systemic antitumor immunity via intratumoral regulated expression of IL-12 as a gene therapy approach to treatment of cancer.
The reason why Dr. Meininger would choose to join Oncosec is because he is a strong believer in the progression of technologies that can fuel the development of small molecule, peptide and protein-based drugs. He wrote the following article last year in which he explains his stand in the future of biologics based drugs and the importance of cost reduction with a greater on target efficacy and lower risk of toxicity.
"The Increasing Importance of Biologics-Based Drugs in Pharmaceutical Pipelines."
For the first time in modern history, worldwide total prescription drug sales experienced negative year-over-year growth in 2012. In contrast to conventional pharmaceuticals for which negative sales growth is projected for several more years, sales of biologic products (those derived through biotechnology) grew year-over-year in 2012 and are projected to grow continuously through at least 2018 at a CAGR greater than 7%. These growth trends reflect the relatively lower clinical failure rate for biologics vs small molecules; notably, the phase II failure rate of small molecules is nearly twice that of biologics. The industry shift toward biologics reflects their relatively greater on-target efficacy and lower risk of off-target toxicity compared to conventional pharmaceutical drugs. Several prominent pharmaceutical firms have set explicit targets ranging from roughly 20% to greater than 75% for the biologics portions of their R&D pipelines. This extent of emphasis on large molecules represents a radical evolution of thought from the late 90’s and early 2000’s when most major Pharma companies viewed biologics as niche products; prior to the dramatic commercial success of Rituxan and Herceptin, Big Pharma viewed monoclonal antibodies as research reagents that could not be developed as financially and therapeutically successful products. Humira was the top selling drug in the world in 2012 at $9.6B in total sales with 2018 sales projected to be $12.8B.
Not only are biologics projected to comprise an ever greater component of the biopharmaceutical product mix, they are also providing what are arguably the most exciting treatment effects in recent clinical trials. Recent regulatory approval of the antibody-drug conjugate products Adcetris and Kadcyla were assured based on impressive clinical outcomes in lymphoma and breast cancer, respectively. Response rates in late-stage metastatic melanoma for the immunotherapy monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab are unprecedented with responses anticipated to be highly durable after cessation of treatment. It is this kind of meaningful benefit to patients that is sure to drive continued growth of biologics over the years and decades to come.
They temporarily put on hold the study as they are now pursuing combinations with the ImmunoPulse platform only. Till present date, there is nothing available to combat MCC which is a rare disease that has an approximate mortality rate of 40 per cent with current treatment approaches. Oncosec had decided to wait until an Anti-CTLA4, Anti-PD1 or Anti-PD-L1 is closer to the market. In the meantime, on June 11, 2013, they began a pre-clinical experiment testing all three proteins in collaboration with Old Dominion University and the Frank Reidy Research Center, to see which protein might give the best results in a future combination study.
Currently Pfizer and Merck have agreed to collaborate on the development of the Anti-PD-L1 inhibitor MSB0010718C, and there is already a mid-stage trial of anti-PD-L1 in patients with MCC on its way. By the time that study is completed, Oncosec will be more advanced on their combination trial with Keytruda (anti PD-1) and will be able to show that ImmunoPulse of IL-12 can make a difference when combined with the protein.
Also, on a recent study of MCC, Dr. Bhatia designed a trial to evaluate ID-G100 in patients with MCC. The trial will provide insights into the ability of ID-G100 to stimulate an immune response in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma. G100 is an investigational immuno-oncology agent designed to generate a robust anti-tumor immune response when administered directly to the tumor micro-environment. Immune Design, a clinical stage bio company with a recent IPO that is trading at $16 and worth comparing to Oncosec, is the company in collaboration with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, where Oncosec also has a clinical research division and is working along with Dr.Bhatia, who has already done an exploratory analysis of samples from Oncosec’s data collected from patients in the Phase II study in Merkel cell carcinoma trial and will give out final clinical results later this month.
There are studies on the works for Merkel cell carcinoma and Oncosec just needs to show good results on their end.
fine, agreed, but I still have an unanswered question.
If you are lost for explanations, let me know, I will be more than glad to help you out.
Low, how would you explain that even though it might be paid promotional garbage, the fact that the article was written in such a nice way, it does not erase the significance of what it is trying to convey in its summary:
"with the introduction of a business development executive, it may be a sign that (1) a revenue-bearing product is seen as inevitable, and (2) it will be here sooner than anticipated."
Are you expecting interim results soon?
thanks Twiz, there is also another Patent of Dr. Heller that reminded me of something I recently posted on YMB.
Patent #8017368 is for a molecular delivery to cells using aspirin-related compounds.
The present invention provides for a system and method whereby aspirin and acetic acid help to permeabilize cell membranes to allow exogenous molecules to gain access to the cell interior. As such, the present invention provides a low cost drug and gene delivery tool that can be applied in combination with other molecular delivery methods. In an advantageous embodiment the method may further include the step of applying an electric field to the contacted membrane to electroporate the membrane.
From one of my recent post in YMB, "Scientists turn to aspirin to turbo-charge cancer immunotherapy."
Giving cheap aspirin to cancer patients may turbo-charge the effectiveness of expensive new medicines that help their immune systems fight tumors, experiments on mice suggest. In the experiments on mice, researchers used a mouse-specific anti-PD-1 which substantially slowed the growth of bowel and melanoma cancers in mice when compared with treatment by immunotherapy alone. They expect the aspirin effect to be similar with human medicines blocking PD-1, PD-L1 and another class of drugs targeting CTLA-4.
Immunotherapy promises to revolutionize cancer care by offering a better, longer-lasting response with fewer adverse side effects than conventional treatment, but the new drugs do not work well in all cases. With future immunotherapy use widely expected to involve multi-drug combinations, adding aspirin to the mix would be one way to help keep a lid on soaring costs.
These are two very good reasons why ImmunoPulse will be needed and why Aspirin wants to get in the mix. The difference will be in the aiming directly into the cells for reprogramming them and Dr. Heller is already a few steps ahead.