Wild,
It's worth reading the relevant slides from BioNTech's JPM presentation as they explain more about InstaDeep's role.
It's hard to even imagine the amount of data required to produce effective personalised cancer treatments. NGS technology has enabled the identification of mutations within a tumour, but how do you then select the best neoantigens and for each antigen, how do you select the best epitopes? Then factor in it has to be done for each and every patient at speed. It surely wouldn't be possible without AI. That's just one example of the role of AI in one disease type.
It seems impossible to even begin to identify the good from the not so good AI companies, but as BioNTech have been working with InstaDeep for years they'll know exactly what they're getting. As technology advances and we understand more and more about the immune system and diseases at a molecular level, it seems that AI is going to play a bigger and bigger role. BioNTech's acquisition of InstaDeep at this relatively early stage could prove to be a very shrewd move.
https://investors.biontech.de/events-presentations
Pippa
That's a very different situation. We were discussing the risk of the BioNTech/Scancell collaboration leading to BioNTech trying to effectively steal Scancell's IP. My point was that if the companies are collaborating and BioNTech wanted Scancell's IP then they'd simply buy it - either through licensing or by buying the asset.
The IP issue with Moderna, CureVac and BioNTech didn't arise from sharing IP as part of a collaboration agreement - afaik it's all about the use of the full length spike protein in the various mRNA vaccines and who owns the rights. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
pippamuffin
Re. your 12.24. BioNTech is one of the most innovative bios on the planet and have brilliant scientists of their own - I don't think they need to resort to stealing anyone's ideas. More to the point though, why would they try to bypass any patents and risk a costly IP infringement lawsuit when they could simply pay to license or acquire any technology of interest?
correction - studied not studies
Cleanerworld,
BioNTech's T cell enhancer is actually another mRNA vaccine which encodes T cell antigen mRNA for non-spike proteins - so still part of their mRNA vaccine platform. AFAIK they haven't revealed which proteins they're targeting, just that they've studies all variants and selected epitopes from the most highly conserved proteins. So I assume (but don't know for sure) that will include the Nucelocapsid protein.
So no connection to Scancell other than the satisfaction of knowing that way back at the outset of this pandemic, Lindy Durrant had the foresight to know that vaccines would need to target more highly conserved proteins rather than relying on Spike alone and also that potent T cell responses were needed alongside the B cell response. It's good to see her approach being validated by the likes of BioNTech and Pfizer.
Another new patent application from Redx has been listed in today's UK Patent Journal:-
GB2217844.6 Applicant: Redx Pharma PLC
Title: Compounds
Date Lodged: 28 November 2022
Redx have now lodged at least 5 new patent applications over the past 6 months - clearly R&D work is continuing apace.
Kashdog,
Thanks for the reply - who knows? It's all speculation and your guess is as good as mine.
Konar - would just add that the combination safety cohort 3 is at a low dose and will be followed by another safety cohort 4 at a higher dose before they commence the expansion arms.
Ray - thanks for the reply. Think the fact that the combination cohorts are starting later might give the impression that Scancell are in less of a hurry, but it's just down to the trial design. For safety reasons the combination cohorts couldn't start until the monotherapy cohorts had been dosed without any major problems. (Appreciate you realise that, but others might not)
Why do you think they're in no hurry Ray? I thought they were pressing on with each and every cohort as quickly as possible although could have missed something - perhaps a comment at the AGM?
ee
You have misunderstood my point - I was referring to the pharma, not Scancell.
Kashdog,
Redmile invested in BioNTech's way before then - they led BioNTech's series A funding round back in 2018. It's highly likely that they were alerted to Scancell's potential through the BioNTech connection.
I'm struggling to see any connection with Merck,who have firmly nailed their colours to the mRNA cancer vaccine mast with their Moderna collaboration. They also have other vaccine collaborations and Scancell have never been linked to Merck. The Keytruda link is simply down to the fact that it happens to be the SOC checkpoint inhibitor, but worth noting that the SCIB1 trial is also looking at Opdivo and Yervoy in combination with SCIB1. There are several other major PD-1 and PD-L1 developers who need effective combination therapies just as much - some would argue more than Merck and I wonder whether one of these would be a much better strategic fit for Scancell?
Konar,
That is my understanding too.
Konar - that's the current setting for SCIB1
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079166?term=scancell&draw=2&rank=3
lofas - do you have a link to comments from Merck?
Cleanerworld,
The international team isn't big pharma - it's Scancell, UoN and Proteome Sciences.
This article is a write up of the GRP78 poster presented at SITC in November and the full paper published in the peer reviewed Frontiers journal in December. See links below.
https://scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/posters/bip-sitc-2022-poster.pdf
https://scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/papers/brentville-et-al-2022.pdf
ee - thanks and phew
ee
Are you suggesting that OncoResponse could RTO into Scancell?
Burble,
Yes, probably good idea. I obviously didn't ask LD about how it could be done, just whether it was possible as I wanted to understand why BioNTech seemed more interested in Modi for TCR therapy rather than Modi for their own mRNA vaccines - as I say, that was back in 2018. She simply replied that whilst it was possible to create mRNA moditope vaccines, a peptide vax would be more effective.
Burble,
Back in 2018 I asked Lindy Durrant whether it was possible to created a Modi1 mRNA vaccine and she confirmed that it was, but that peptides were more effective.
The above article was published in the BMJ today and includes a short section on Scancell's Moditope with comment from Lindy Durrant:-
'One interesting approach is under development by the Oxford based start-up Scancell. The firm’s Moditope platform aims to enlist CD4+ T cells, rather than CD8+ T cells. The former are sometimes called “helper” cells that coordinate activity by cytotoxic CD8+ T cells, which are those that directly challenge pathogens in the body. Lindy Durrant, chief executive of Scancell, explains that the idea is to prime the CD4+ T cells in such a way that, when they enter tumours, they provoke inflammation in the tumour cells, which would otherwise be absent. This should allow the CD4+ T cells to become cytotoxic themselves, detect the target peptides on the tumour cells, and then destroy them—rather like ripping the invisibility cloak off an intruder.
“If you can really get good inflammation and good, targeted T cells in these tumours, you can just make [the tumours] disappear,” says Durrant. Referring to unpublished data from an ongoing trial, she mentions that one patient has demonstrated a 36% reduction in tumour size after just two immunisations (of a total of five). Biopsies from this patient are due to be analysed to confirm the presence and activity of immune cells. Durrant says, “I can’t really believe that result yet; we need to get more.” Around 140 patients will take part in the phase 1/2 trial, due to complete in 2026.15'
https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.o3041