One little known difference for atacicept is it deals with not only BLyS and APRIL, but also a heterotrimer that has been shown to induce B-cell proliferation in vitro. If that heterotrimer indeed has some causality in vivo, then only atacicept has the ability to get at it.
I follow ZGEN mainly for the thrombin program, so I’ll defer to those who know more about the overall company.
>How should ZGEN's relationship with Novo be factored in, if at all?<
The last time I checked, NVO still owned a preferred bidding position with respect to partnering ZGEN’s clinical programs in much the same way that Roche does with DNA’s programs. This has the effect of lowering the economic value of these programs to a small degree. Regards, Dew