Replies to post #221365 on Biotech Values

[jondoeuk]

After listening to the cc its no surprise. I wish they had tested this in an earlier setting with an anti-PD1 (+/- G100). Using the former makes more sense as PD-1 has a preferential affinity for PD-L2 https://academic.oup.com/intimm/article/22/8/651/774506 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X03012579 http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/20/19/5064.long

There was preclinical and clinical data for G100. Preclincal http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/77/13_Supplement/5673 wise it has been shown to improve T-cell trafficking and clinical http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/77/13_Supplement/2947 it repolarises macrophages from the M2 phenotype into M1. M2's produce a range of factors that stop DC maturation https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1096-1096 and result in T-cell apoptosis https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(12)00041-1

Beyond that they were working towards taking their heterologous prime-boost vaccines in trials. For the boost the company switched from using the adenovirus vector the synthetic self-replicating mRNA as this had better efficacy https://edge.media-server.com/version/1528070980/m6/instances/d3fser9u/items/z3gdyz7s/decks/sx546rfy/charts/5ntgjw7z/0/1280.png A number of improvements had been made to the prime as well. I know it had increased capacity for multiple antigens, got around antigen competition/immunodominance and more. It could also be given more than once.

ZVex-IL12 is gone too http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/76/14_Supplement/4884