We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Not my area, but I thought that single /triple quads were more common in hospitals , usually used for small molecule analysis in the format of LC-MS or LC-MS/MS. You can have a maldi front end to these but it is less common than electro spray.
They are not clear about the details of how the sars cov 2 analysis will work. Most of the blurb from Adeptrix talks about digest then pull down of peptides. The other option is pull down the virons then digest - this could potentially also open it up to use of other MS's . There is also not any discussion of protein glycosylation which may need addressing . None of these are significant problems, once the assay is released it will be interesting to look at the method to see what they do.
Tomvisual - thanks for post. Would you have an idea how many MS machines that equates to, and how many sit in non-medical labs vs hospitals? Also I note there are many types of MS machines and I think the BAMS system only works on MALDI TOF Mass spectrometers. How many MALDI machines are really out there? In my searches I came across a couple recent papers arguing that MALDI machines save at least their cost - £100,000’s(?) - in <3 years in a hospital setting, which would suggest that adoption of the technology is not standard at the moment. Any medics care to put us out of our misery on this one?
Thanks to folks for taking the time to share your expertise will admit subject matter way beyond my comprehension
Some info from Adeptrix
BAMS™: Bead Assisted Mass Spectrometry
A new tool for targeted, multiplexed proteomics that combines bead-based affinity enrichment with the power of mass spectrometry
https://adeptrix.com/technology
https://adeptrix.com/
Orphidian, I do have experience of doing protein quant (in a research environment) using most of these techniques.
The MS can replace the need for LC, however the matrix effects can become too severe without some sort of sample cleanup/pre-separation, this is where the affirmers fit in as they can enrich and purify the target proteins and so reduce the background.
The discussion about other biomarkers is in interesting one and relavant to Avacta. At the moment in a medical situation many proteins are measured (singularly) using elisa tests or similar, using MS there is the potential to multiplex these so you could monitor many proteins from one sample at the same time. The main problem is that the proteins used as biomarkers are typically at low abundance. it is easy to envisage how affirmers could fit into this approach using a multiple array to purify and enrich for the target proteins.
I don't see the sar cov2 MS test being a huge money earner, but I do think that the collaboration and awareness that it raises will open other future, larger, avenues of revenue for the company.
Wow CO - thanks for the post. I hadn't considered the spike protein - could do ratio - virus vs spike protein.
If an institution had to choose between a PCR and a MS test which would they choose - I'm thinking we couid start with tbise numbers. If not how many tests are we not doing due to PCR constraints. Must be lots of university types doing nowt at moment
Oh hang on.....
Mass spectrometry is a multi billion pound industry in the NorthWest of the UK.
Govt could engage uk mass spec companies to run tests as well as hospitals and anyone who had one - universities, chemical companies etc. Processing would be an automated procedure.
TOF (Time of Flight) and magnetic sector mass spectrometers could be used
So PL75, how seriously AVAGOTIT?
Good video thanks - explains it very well...
GLA
RD, re volumes, pricing, margins...
My guess if launched successfully would be worth anything from a few $million to a few $10s of million to Avacta. Not as massive as the rapid test potential of course, but lower risk, and significant compared to current cash position on the order of £20mln. In the unlikely event that all else covid were to flop, that could still go a long way towards developing the cancer therapies without further placings.
Working:
See: https://www.adeptrix.com/store
Existing assay kits range from $1600 to $3500 per 96 tests.
And we know: “Avacta will receive a royalty on the sales of BAMS test kits by Adeptrix.“ but not how much. If royalty were say 5-10% (a guess) on $20-30/test, that’s $1-3 to Avacta per test.
Market is hard to predict... If monkshood or Ophidian or anyone might know how many appropriate MS machines there are as a target market, please advise. Also we have to consider they are probably already in use and unlikely to be suddenly assigned 100% to running this test. For a ball-park, there are c20,000 hospitals in the USA, Europe and UK based on a billion people and about 1 per 50,000 population - also ignoring MSs in non-hospital labs for now. If 10% of these hospitals took 10 x 96 kits each that’s already about 2 million kits and $2-6 million royalties. It could easily be 10 times that if good uptake and/or broader geography. 100 times - not impossible? But it might well become production capacity-constrained before hitting the loftier of these estimates.
Interesting then... I had been thinking the primary appeal here was to enable labs/hospitals to also put MS devices into use on testing, and thus increase capacity and access to gold-standard equivalent testing without a PCR machine. But if the BAMS test will be quantitative... and they could also include a test for the detached spikes, which potentially signify disease progression... This test could also be a completely unique proposition in terms of the data it provides to help understand the virus - not just for research but also maybe improving patient outcomes.
I’ve been wondering about the detached spike proteins lately - will they really be prevalent in saliva? If they detach over time as the disease progresses, aren’t you more likely to see them in blood serum than saliva, which is more or less continuously produced and swallowed as we eat, drink, look at the Avacta share price, etc? Genuinely interested, not a biologist. Thanks all for the pleasingly technical dialogue!
Hi. I understand it can be a quantative technique but i dont know how much viral particles are in a sample helps in treatment options. At moment my understanding was the advantage affimer brings is that suddenly a lot of high throughput, readily available (perhaps not) generic MS kit could be utilised as a are you +/- Cv19. As I say I'm the living embodiment of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Perhaps enjoying learning some science too much as well - just been reading teach yourself A level MS.
In terms if the commercials what are the inputs looking like for this particular test.
Volumes, pricing, margins?
@Monkshood - following on from your 16:37 post and I apologise that it will probably be impossible to conduct a proper discussion because of the child like antics of one particular miscreant on here.
However - yes the Affimer as I understand it effectively does the separation rather than say a column as in an HPLC. But just like unknown drug impurities may initially by characterised and tracked by their RRT on the column, as specific methods are developed those impurities will have their structure elucidated and will then become "Knowns" potentially even being synthesised as standards to run in the future. They will always have their RRT and can be identified as being the species of interest because of it - their unique signature if you like. On the MS, the TOF signature of the mass ions hitting the detector may be viewed as akin to the RRT of unknown impurities - constant and discrete species but of unknown structure - hence it is my thinking that as part of the package the reference spectra detailing which mass ions (i.e which times) are the ones of interest and hence which ones to count will be provided. In other words they will have already characterised the mass ion of interest - and will provide a specific method (I'm not talking just about the prep) and reference spectra as part of the package otherwise how is any lab supposed to be able to know which responses to count and hence quantitate.
I'm interested in your thought - particularly if you have knowledge and experience of using MS for protein fragments as this is outside my own experience. Sorry again that debate will probably prove impossible. At least some people have now discovered for themselves that this is a quantitative technique in spite being told that already today and about a fortnight ago too.
Ophidian
Sounds like Perdita is talking about biomarkers. For example CRP (marker of sepsis) E2 (marker of ovulation), sRAGE (marker of COPD). So mass spec can do +/- on viral presence I think. It can also quantify (from what lord professor monkshood said i think this is approach specific). I'm not sure Perdita is talking about MS on virus but more our bodies response. The interviewer was like me - no tricking idea.
RK, the mass spectrometry test assay may also remove the bottlenecks identified in the US with regeants, test machines etc. posted on this BB
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/863558750/coronavirus-testing-machines-are-latest-bottleneck-in-troubled-supply-chain
The video posted here explains it well for a numpty like me...
https://mobile.twitter.com/buy_buy_bye/status/1265892027067138048
I was completely wrong, it’s not about +/-, it’s quantitative and that’s where measuring disease progression comes in. Unless I’ve misinterpreted this video too. In which case I’ll just forget it and concentrate on watching the share price going up or down.
The LFD and MS technology are significantly different from perspective - monks hood ?
The technical stuff on LFD have been posted on here in last couple of days. For both tests we know we have affimers that bind the virus and spike protein but can it flow through a nitrocellulose membrane, bind to second affimer, have a suitable LOD. We don't know but if it does then yeeeeeeee hah. I've got my eye on a caravan in Skegness, bit of a project but good communication links, what with it being next to the dual carriageway.
RK always balanced and informative - thank you for continual posts.
For me the Cytvia LFD test is the one. Football returning, airports re-opening etc... this is the test that lets you screen people on entry to airports or footballers twice weekly without going to a GP etc... Demand will be repeated and then there will be the medusa19 angle for individuals that need to know this week and again in two weeks etc... to protect themselves and loved ones. Therefore with the minimal infection rate at the moment around the world this will be by far be one to transform the company I would guess.
If Adeptrix comes back first on RNS (as indicated) it should prove the Cytvia concept and therefore it will be a manufacturing issue surely.
The MS BAMS partnership with Adeptrix is the easy one for Avacta and as a direct competitor to PCR but with an advantage in areas of the world where buying new equipment is hard it will open options for low cost testing.
The big one in testing for me remains the LFD Point of Care test with Cytiva.
Demand globally for this one will still be off the scale and for some time.
It will lead nicely into the partnership for the Affimer Therapeutic Product to stop the virus. Hopefully with Astra Zeneca.
These 3 partnerships and opportunities have enough to transform Avacta into a global Biotech business.
This will be great news for Avacta’s clients and investors.
Cheers RK
In that case and without letting all the others know - what else have you put the rest in.
When I look at my portfolio its looking really unbalanced - put about 20% of starting capital in over time (used thus years is a) but now its looking very odd. It better than all the rest....
Funny thing is the swings each day are hairy but I'm a believer... .
Yes, I am invested here. I was in originally for the cancer work. I was lucky enough to get most when it was cheap (lowest was 14p). I have sold some on the way up as I don't like to have much more than 10% in one company having been caught out in the past. Boring, yes, but I don't stress when the price drops!
Technically I can see no reason why the MS analysis will not work, there are sar cov2 peptides which are diagnostic and have been shown to detectable by MS from saliva, the main thing will be what it costs and the available instrument capacity relative to hospitals running PCR tests.
I have no practical experience of what is involved in making the strip tests, but like everyone one else here can see the value in a simple test of this type...
So Monks head. Given you at least understand the science bit (which doesn't make you a nerd), what do you think will drive the valuation. For balance, what are the potential risks ?
Thank you again.
@Monkshood. I'd love to say I followed what you said word for word. But I love that you sound like you know what you're talking about. Assuming, therefore, that you are invested here, and after all you have said, then that is good enough for me. insert smiley face emoji.
Don't stop though, I am sure there are more scientific learned members of this board who understood that perfectly.
Huum … was that all a bit too nerdy??
Is just the usual rampy it is going to £10 so 'buy avacta' better ;o)
For the IS (internal standards) you can either add tags of different molecular weight to a control and your sample, this is after trypsin digest or you could add a chemically synthesised heavy peptide (expensive?); or, (before digestion) add a synthetic protein labelled with Arg/Lys amino acids containing heavy isotopes C13/N15, this is a better IS as it controls for the digestion but will need more work in advance. Tryspin cuts at these two amino acids so a 'tryptic peptide' will always be labelled this way. The MS will measure the ration of the light (sample) to heavy (standard) peptides.
PL75 - I would say you are making yourself look like an idiot the way you treat Ophidian!
He has 25 years experience in managing these exact type of projects. You can try to be funny, but you would learn much if you actual too what you are being explained.
Please show respect or give you comments a break.
I give everyone huge respect as you will know from my posting history. But, I know Ophidian and what he does. I know he knows his stuff.
Thanks,
RK