Replies to post #11219 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[gunnabeoneday]

Ming: I appreciate your reply.

I still find it hard to believe that any pharma wouldn't cut a deal with DNAP to co-develop one of their lower tier drug candidates just to see how effective DNAPs science is. Sure they'd have to offer royalties and such to DNAP, but by being the first such pharma to initiate a formal relationship for drug discovery with us I'm sure they'd get decent terms and have options to pursue other drugs based on the results. And I'd think DNAP would certainly recognize the value of an initial pharma relationship and the resulting exposure and would be willing to settle for less on the first project. Very similar to DNAWitness and the La. killer exposure. Just get the science out there and the flock shall follow if the results warrant. IMO

[gunnabeoneday]

Ming: Can you provide some clarification on issues I tabled with Frog earlier??

1) If Retinome falls under the DNAWitness umbrella, do you believe that BC would still be entitled to execute this option on Retinome?

2) Frog said that if BC passed on their option for DNAP's first product, then the option would no longer be an issue for subsequent products (Ovanome and Statinome). I didn't infer that from the PR......Can you elaborate?

3) Would ovanome be exempt from the option due to Univ. of Miami's involvement?

tia