InvestorsHub Logo

DaubersUP

06/25/20 10:06 PM

#305999 RE: MinnieM #305986

Stickie this new update! Great info!

CatchakowaBunga

06/25/20 10:17 PM

#306002 RE: MinnieM #305986

Me likeyyyy ..... board mod. Please add slide pics.... :)

MinnieM

06/25/20 10:20 PM

#306003 RE: MinnieM #305986

Here's an important slide to tack onto the post I'm responding to.

Slide 6 shows we won't have to do a ph1 for covid which has already been mentioned by LilyGDog

Select slides from $IPIX June 2020 Corporate Overview
Those related to Covid-19 from presentation

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5715352e20c647639137f992/t/5ef52e8642e893359052ad10/1593126540921/IPIX+Corporate+Overview+June+2020+fv.pdf








Message in reply to:

$IPIX June 2020 Corporate Overview This post includes pics related to Covid-19 from presentation
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5715352e20c647639137f992/t/5ef52e8642e893359052ad10/1593126540921/IPIX+Corporate+Overview+June+2020+fv.pdf

























humpback

06/26/20 11:45 AM

#306116 RE: MinnieM #305986

I am now up to 15k shares, I think this one will soon be in the dollars. I've been tempted in taking advantage of the up and down swings by selling high and buying more at the low, but with this one nobody knows. At any point, without warning, this could make a sudden jump into dollar land. If thing is really an effective treatment against Covid, there are single investors who are rich enough to buy the entire float.

KMBJN

06/26/20 10:33 PM

#306294 RE: MinnieM #305986

Very nice. Have been busy and no time to post on ihub recently, which I'm sure many here appreciate :) since I am apparently not sufficiently bullish enough. Couple of comments:

One RBL and One PHRI

Loanranger, for you slide 10 - notice the controls were either H20 or DSMO.

Pre-treatment before SARS introduction to VERO cells reduces viral load (compared with H20) by 75% but post infection only by 35-50%. Neither H20 or DSMO should have an effect, but sloppy that they didn't use the same control - makes comparison of treatment time harder.

The above indicates that brilacidin does better when administered before the virus gets into cells, which means it probably acts mainly by attacking the viral envelope outside of cells (or somehow inhibiting viral entry).

Still looking forward to the preprint hopefully giving further insight into the MOA of viral inhibition. Appreciate the graphs, but would be nice to see more, like what concentrations used.

Just because brilacidin is a mimetic of HDPs, doesn't mean that brilacidin automatically has all of the same properties as the incredibly vast variety of HDPs. Brilacidin was designed to mimic magnainan and be more stable and easier to produce, but it was designed and tested mainly to be an antibiotic, IMO. Again IMO, but other properties were fortuitously discovered (anti-inflammatory as PDE4 inhibitor, antiviral properties in vitro; i.e. what are the odds that brilacidin is predicted to just happen to fit into coronavirus main protease binding pocket to inhibit it? Is magnainan predicted to do the same?).

Then again, maybe the cationic prongs are all it takes to pierce the viral envelope, as we have discussed before, from reference:

https://www.future-science.com/doi/full/10.2144/btn-2020-0042

In this context, it is conceivable that the passage of infectious particles could be diminished by modifying the hydrophobic microenvironment. The negatively charged phospholipid bilayer helps the assembly of viral proteins – including E protein – for budding, envelope arrangement, and pathogenesis [9]. A cationic amphiphilic peptide (CAP) surfactant might be generally appropriate to neutralize the environment and reduce viral passage; the cationic nature of surfactant not only prevents the possibility of frothing, but also strengthens links with the negatively charged viral membrane envelope. It also lessens the electrostatic charges of the S protein and helps to reduce the affinity of the S protein for the ACE2 receptor.

CAP-induced disturbance/disruption of the membrane lipid bilayer could happen in various ways, as envisaged in various studies (e.g., barrel-fight model, toroidal model, cover model and cleanser model) [16,17]. A few CAPs are notable for causing fusion of cell membranes and can control viral infections by intervening in the fusion process between the host cell membrane and the enveloped virus [18]. The fusogenic TAT protein transduction area has been utilized to convey a wide scope of the naturally dynamic segments and medications by the immediate entrance over the lipid membrane [19]. Membrane permeabilization is viewed as a significant trait of antiviral action. In poxviruses, rifampin is a compelling inhibitor of viral envelope arrangement; lipid layer-bound viral proteins might be targeted immunologically to expand its counterviral efficacy.

For a successful and effective interaction, both electrostatic charge and hydrophobicity are significant. A positive charge is required initially to attract negatively charged membranes, and hydrophobic mass aides is required to disturb the membrane just as it makes contact with the hydrophobic site of HR1, HR2 area of viral combination protein and the receptor restricting space of S protein; this may lessen viral passage into the cell.



It's great to see that the E protein and thus viral envelope are sufficiently negatively charged such that our cationic spear brilacidin can pierce it or rather instead stop viral fusion with cell membrane. That was one of the questions I mentioned when we first talked about brilacidin as antiviral. That is exciting support for how brilacidin should work!

Unfortunately brilacidin as an IV therapy that prevents viral entry might be less efficacious in treating disease where virus has already invaded lung epithelial cells - when people start showing symptoms. Also fascinating that the virus spreads by "tentacles" passing from one cell to another. In such a case a viral entry drug wouldn't be very helpful to stop spread.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/06/26/coronavirus-grows-tentacles-inside-cells-providing-clue-treatment/3235414001/

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-causes-weaponized-tentacles-sprout-infected-cells-directly-inject-virus



Another reference from corporate overview:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7165072/

Reviews the rationale for HDPs against coronavirus:


Anti-microbial peptides (AMPs), also called host-defense peptides, are pivotal effector molecules of intrinsic defense system of virtually all multi-cellular organisms, acting as endogenous antibiotics to obliterate intruding pathogens [3]. These peptides often display short chain lengths (typically <?50 amino acids), positive charges, and around ≥?30% hydrophobicity. In addition to anti-microbial activities, AMPs may elicit immunomodulatory effects [4]. Owing to their broad-spectrum anti-microbial activity, robust microbicidal potency, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and low tendency for resistance development, AMPs seem to be ideal drug leads for treating various infections including viral diseases [5].



Just like brilacidin: definite anti-microbial, probably immunomodulatory, and probably anti-viral, but not well understood how.

Lots to learn still on the science of brilacidin and HDPs/HDPms as antivirals. Amazing results so far for brilacidin, and hope we get funding to get into trials soon. Best of luck to all.