Member Info for Bermudashorts

Prof. Caroline Dive is presenting today and over the next few days at EACR (European
Association for Cancer Research) Conference in Amsterdam. She's making the following presentations:-

Imaging Therapy Failure - Saturday 30th June

Circulating tumour cells, a multi-use liquid biopsy - Sunday 1st July

Liquid biopsies - Monday 2nd July

For any who may not have come across her, Prof. Dive heads up a team at CRUK Manchester researching liquid biopsies in cancer and is a leading expert on CTC liquid biopsies. She has recently been awarded a CBE in acknowledgement of her work and has published several research papers using the Parsortix system. Angle have a collaboration agreement with CRUK Manchester. I don't know whether any of her presentations will feature new research or Parsortix but worth watching for any reports/feedback.

https://eacr25.org/

I had no idea you had sent me that link

The link in your last post doesn't seem to take you to intended paper - instead it takes you to research entitled:-

'Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students'

!!!!!!!

ah OK thanks, understand about Hardman Report.

As for rest, when it comes to the science, product development and regulatory progress, CH is completely in LD's hands. He can only RNS developments as and when they come from LD's team. Assuming that your concern is around the SCIB1 IND, I'm not sure how you can see the RNS as a test for CH or the lack of one as his failure. Perhaps I have misunderstood where you're coming from.

Have you tried emailing CH with your concerns?

............or maybe they're just getting on with the job in hand and working to get as close as possible to the ANTICIPATED timescales. The preparation of the IND fall within the remit of Lindy Durrant and Sally Adam's team and whilst I agree that this wait is frustrating to say the least, I'm not sure Lindy Durrant's reputation will plummet.

You may be right with your comment ' In the end, it’s all about reputation' but only as far as the short term share price is concerned. The long term product development is about getting it right!!

Not sure why you're expecting an update from Hardman. Assume you're talking about IND submission?

..........and just to add to Inan's point, don't forget that Ichor have submitted their master file to FDA so any queries relating to their device will already have been raised and dealt with. That leaves you with a drug that is already approved and a drug that already has clinical data to support the IND and a trial design that presumably has already been discussed with the FDA in the pre IND meeting.

Nice article in DT:-

'Andrew Newland, chief executive of Angle said the fundraising was oversubscribed and has attracted investment from three large institutional investors. Existing fund managers Jupiter, L&G and Fidelity are also taking part in the placing.'

Good stuff

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/06/25/investors-jump-board-liquid-biopsy-company-angle-moves-closer/

Just read your 17.53 - there's a blast from the past. Rat-a-tat-tat, keys to the kingdom and all that :)

Some excellent and really informative posts. Thanks.

Didn't know you were holding here. Great RNS this morning - congrats to you and all LTH's!!

Actually you haven't explained at all - nobody is disputing that the APC presents the antigens, it's what happens next that you have picked up on time and again with my posts and yet refuse to point out where I'm wrong and help me understand what you think really happens. For the T cell to be activated, it must recognise and interact with the MHC complex displaying the peptide on the surface of the APC - it does this via the TCR. So TCR must recognise and make contact/dock/bind (whatever word you prefer) before it can become activated. What is wrong with that statement and what actually happens if it's wrong? You don't need to answer, we're just clogging the bb. As Ivy has quite rightly pointed out, it's really not necessary to understand at this level. All you need to do is read Scancell's presentations, trial results and watch Lindy Durrant presenting at the Calculus Investor event and make your own mind up.

Your 23.16 simply says that CD4 T Cells become activated when presented with peptide antigens. It doesn't answer my question (or indeed the same question you KEEP asking me) which is exactly how they are activated. As I explained in my 20.51 and , for the T Cell to become activated it must actually recognise and interact with the MHC complex displaying the peptide on the surface of the APC - it does this via the TCR. So TCR must recognise and make contact/dock/bind (whatever word you prefer) before it can become activated. You clearly think this is incorrect so please can you explain why and how you think it happens.

Sorry, not quite with you re. mapping. AFAIK, MHC1 are molecules on cell surface which present the antigen to the immune system.

Agree 100%.

My understanding is that naïve T cells can only become activated when they bind to corresponding MHC/ peptide on the APC. How do you think they are activated?

Following immunisation, APCs take up the modified peptides and display them on their cell surface. A CD4 T cell with surface receptors corresponding to those peptides then binds to the APC. When the T cell has 'docked', the APC releases cytokines which activate the T cell. The T cell itself then releases cytokines which stimulates the rapid production of a clone of cells which are obviously identical to the original T cell. These killer CD4 T cells then seek and destroy tumour cells displaying those antigens.

It's promising, it's positive and it can only help with the change in sentiment towards cancer vaccines . However, it's a different vaccine from a different company against different antigens in a different cancer (and HPV at that) with just 8 patients responding Is it proof that there is no risk here? Of course it isn't. Is it proof of synergy between SCIB1 and Keytruda? No it's not. It's encouraging that human trials in other vaccines support the preclinical research carried out by Scancell but it's no more than that at this stage.

Ah right thanks, your use of the word 'invasive' suggested something else but can see where you were coming from now.

Can you clarify what you actually mean by this statement? ' Scancells route to market is the least invasive procedure of all the immunotherapies'