Replies to post #175745 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[nidan7500]

Ignored

[Investor2014]

*Sigma-1 Receptor Agonists Induce Oxidative Stress
inMitochondria and Enhance Complex I Activity in Physiological
Condition but Protect Against Pathological Oxidative Stress
Nino Goguadze1,2 & Elene Zhuravliova2 & Didier Morin3 & Davit Mikeladze2 & Tangui Maurice1 Neurotox Res
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12640-017-9838-2 2017

I seem to recall you previously misinterpreted this paper.

Will interested in Falconer's analysis on the paper.

[OFP]

Thus, if you would like to claim that 2-73's MOA is via S1R agonism (and you have) then, given that there are many known and marketed S1R agonists, you need to show how 2-73's agonism is unique in a way that produces its pharmacological effect advantageously over these other S1R agonists. THIS, IMO you have not done..

After I asked you to provide evidence that suggests 2-73 agonism is somehow superior you responded with claims that:
"the sigma-1 receptor effects of Aricept are minor and incidental. For Anavex 2-73, they are direct and firm; because of its favorable (dare I say, unique) molecular architecture."

What this response neglects was this part of my post:

if you are going to make a claim YOU should show AT LEAST ONE study where 2-73 shows some advantage over another compound with the same MOA. Do you have ANY evidence to support your claim?

So where is the evidence for your claims that
1. 2-73 has a unique MOA
2. 2-73's S1R agonism is superior to DZP's?

These are very dramatic claims. I'm sure the entire board will be interested to see what you've found to support such statements.

As a follow up project maybe you could find something that supports a mechanism by which 2-73 has sufficient access to the S1R when co-administered with DZP given the relative binding affinities. If you can it would be really great stuff. Extremely valuable information.