Member Info for BuenaVista

No, sorry, can't hear it for the snoring.

The orange one doesn't care about the plight of his people at the moment but fret they not, all will be magically sorted in two weeks.

I will qualify that last post.

Whilst it is true that Avacta have announced their planned timescale for the AVA6103 IND submission and thus don't need to inform the market when it happens, there are circumstances in which they may choose to, or need to. Namely, they could piggy-back the news on another announcement like they have done on occasion for AVA6000 trial progress this year or they could announce it for shareholder engagement (haha!), or there may be a delay that they need to report.

Also, further down the line (say, early next year), there may be a requirement by the FDA that more data be supplied or some modification be made. However I doubt that would happen as Avacta seem to be working closely with the FDA and so should be taking all commentary from the FDA on board.

Serious companies don't give a blow by blow account of clinical trial progression - be wary of the ones that do! - and very serious companies don't really even announce about trial progress until it gets to regulatory submission and approval time as what happes at the start of clinical trials is so minor that it doesn't effect their share prices.

I claim the £10 award for noting that Diagnostics had still been on that page - and it shouldn't have been.

Are Avacta monitoring this forum? If so, they're not showing LDA due respect.

AVA7100 candidate selection won't be announced. It will be an entirely internal matter, as was the AVA6103 candidate selection. We won't know what they either of them are until the relevant patents are published, which I hope Avacta will regard as a newsworthy event. Really, there's nothing to say about their precise chemical structure until then.

Other events such as IND submission and Fast Track, etc applications don't need to be and won't be announced. These have been mentioned as planned to happen, so when they happen, so what? What's important would be the approvals, which would be announced.

- - - - -

Only two days now until the licensing frenzy starts. There'll be elbowing and scrumming, pens wielded and fists flying as they clamber over one another to get to our Simon first. Grand entrance. Ink everywhere!😂😂😂

Can someone tell me why the toukanofdoom was getting so excited about a gathering of bench scientists talking about their preclinical oncology models?

Maybe AstraZeneca will license our Spheroid Co-Cultures model.😂

Sounds like a high level gathering. Platform licensing incoming on Friday.

Do you think there will be business development people there then? What do you think this 'summit' will be about?

The 'news' we are fed doesn't come out of thin air. Here are the UK and US press releases on this to compare and contrast what each government thinks they are getting from the agreement (UK view) or agreement in principle (US view).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-uk-us-pharmaceuticals-deal-to-safeguard-medicines-access-and-drive-vital-investmentfor-uk-patients-and-businesses

https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2025/december/us-government-announces-agreement-principle-united-kingdom-pharmaceutical-pricing

The BBC news item is, unsurprisingly, slanted to the UK view - did they even read the US release? So here is a US slant on the news - did they even read the UK release? -: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/us-uk-zero-pharmaceutical-tariffs-trump/806672/

... in return for a guarantee that US import taxes on pharmaceuticals made in the UK will remain at zero for three years.

Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said the deal "guarantees that UK pharmaceutical exports – worth at least £5bn a year - will enter the US tariff free..."

Oh the fool, the fool.

Here's an incentive scheme for Avacta employees, all 20 of them: £10 for every website error found.

- - - - -

As regards the Substantial Shareholders with holdings above 3%, as of 31 March this year the four EO (execution only) stockbrokers accounted for 55.70% of the issued share capital, with AJ Bell holding a further 7.95%. These are not all of the stockbrokers holding Avacta shares in nominee acounts for retail investors: longterm holders and traders.

Hargreaves Lansdown, Stockbrokers (EO)

Interactive Investors (EO)

AJ Bell Stockbroker

HSDL, Stockbrokers (EO)

Barclays Smart Investor (EO)

The latest, from the Pipeline page: https://avacta.com/pipeline/

AVA6103 is in IND-enabling studies and the US IND is planned for Q4 2025/Q1 2026 and first-in-human Phase 1 development to initiate in Q1 2026.

The AVA7100 program is in the preclinical setting and is anticipated to have candidate selection in 2H 2025 with a potential IND in 2H 2026.

The dual payload pre|CISION platform was designed for the management of difficult to treat cancers by releasing more than one payload at the same time in the tumor microenvironment. The first molecules are designed with a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor and targeting the key resistance mechanism of DNA damage repair.

@cj, if the initial design has evolved then the evolotion will be covered by patents - and it is Bachovchin whose patents have been published. Patents are really, really complex, both in the coverage of the invention (if one's ever looked at one) and their legal dimensions; far too complex to describe or discuss here. But, as an example of the complexity @thevid, re: POINT BioPharma, ownership was credited to both Avacta (for pre|CISION) and to Bachovchin (for radioligand therapy). It may be that all Avacta inventions concerning pre|CISION have to include Bachovchin as an inventor and applicant. Who knows?

But my original point was that it was Bachovchin, not Avacta, that designed AVA6000 (and AVA3996) and everything that followed from that is down to his lab.

@VS, what Bachovchin sold the rights for and what he (or his company) is entitled to from the economic exploitation of the assigned patents will depend on the terms of the agreement made when the patents were assigned to Avacta. I'd be astounded if that agreement didn't allow Bachovchin to have a percentage of the money to be made from the inventions.

Re: CC's "The maturing data set in phase 1B is providing us with ample confidence that precision is working exactly as we designed it to work."

This is exactly what I was saying about CC claiming credit (for herself or Avacta) when it should go to others. As we all here know - and as big farmer will certainly also know - it was Bachovchin's lab that designed AVA6000 and hence also designed how it would work. Avacta have, in essence, only loaded it up and cranked the handle. I wonder how big farmer perceive this scientific grandiosity.

You may say "So what?" but I believe that honesty is important for credibility and integrity and thus for trust in what is being told to us.

AVA6103 and AVA6207 may - or may not - be different, but it is Bachovchin, not Avacta, who has been filing enhanced pre|CISION patents recently and mention of self-immolative linkers goes right back to the original 2014 filing.

And all the stupid predictions of 20p raises.

* https://www.google.com/search?q=D+and+L+amino+acids

CC was adsked about our competitor PDCs at this year's Interims IMC meeting on 30 Sept, reproduced below verbatim.

Question 10: How does a factor think about competing peptide drug conjugate platforms at Philogen and bicycle?

Answer from Meeting: "So, our precision platform has a couple of key differences, compared to, these other peptide drug conjugates. We often get this, question from, institutional investors.

"So, let me take bicycle first. The bicycle, peptide drug conjugates don't use a cleavable technology...[I've edited the rest of this part out]

"And then to take the second part of that one, it's similar, but, the phylogen approach also uses a fat cleavable linker, so much closer to, the precision technology. However, they do substitute out the alanine residue. Remember, ours is an alanine prolene, and it's a post FA is a post-prolene, cleaving enzyme, and so that substitution actually greatly reduces the specificity for FA cleavage, so it will be. Cleavable by other postprolene cleaving enzymes and so that reduces the specificity of, the phylogen approach and so we would predict that their results would be similar to the bicycle. Lower specificity would mean lower concentration in the tumor microenvironment, but, also it, could result in, higher rates of toxicities because those cleavage points would be,. The, the cleavage would be not just specific in the tumor, but you could see, you know, more of those ADC like toxicities there."

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/meetings/interim-results-491

Yeah, I know. No one could be rsed to clean up the transcript.

- - -

The nub of what CC said is that whilst the natural substrate for FAP is a Gly-Pro dipeptide sequence, that sequence is not specific for just FAP and can be cleaved, but to a lesser extent, by prolyl oligopeptidase (POP), aka prolyl endopeptidase (PREP).

The Philogen/Philochem PDC has that sequence: OncoFAP-GlyPro-MMAE - https://www.philogen.com/pipeline/oncofap-glypro-mmae/ - so that means some non-FAP cleavage, and hence potential side-effects/toxicity.

Gly contains H-C-H, whilst Ala contains H-C-CH3 around their alpha carbons. The D-Ala of the pre|CISION substrate's D-Ala-L-Pro* dipeptide sequence will partly mimic Gly in the FAP receptor pocket when the small methyl (-CH3) group on D-Ala points away from the pocket. The consequence of that is that a substrate with D-Ala is not as efficiently cleaved as one with Gly. That's on the negative side. On the positive side, having D-Ala instead of Gly means that the substrate is not cleavable by POP/PREP. In other words it's a trade-off with pre|CISION: less FAP cleavage efficiency for no cleavage by POP/PREP.

This means the dose can be increased without fear of non-FAP cleavage (re: no MTD found for AVA6000) and, as they are doing, altering the chemistry so that the pre|CISION substrate hangs around near to FAP for longer will increase total cleavage and hence efficacy.

- - -

* https://www.google.com/search?q=D+and+

Very good summary. Just one point. We don't yet know the nature or extent of applicability of the self-immolative linker chemistry - the feature that allows drugs that don't have an accessible amine (an -NH2 group) to be linked, so not all "previously dropped drugs" might necessarily be able to be re-purposed. However, the number that can be linked has definitely increased, including MMAE (exatecan could have been using the original, AVA6000- and AVA3996-like chemistry): https://www.google.com/search?q=exatecan+structure (note the accessible -NH2 group in the structural diagram).

Https://www.google.com/search?q=astrazeneca%20fap

Yes, the FAP inhibitors aim to stop FAP working and hence to prevent the tumour growing.

pre|CISION makes use of the FAP enzyme to release cytotoxins directly into the tumour microenvironmnet..