Competition blown out of the water14 Mar 2026 10:45
Richards presentation was very good but difficult for us non scientific folk to grasp it. One set of quotes did stand out to me though when comparing our technology to the competition. Around the 19:20 mark.
https://investorhub.fusionantibodies.com/activity-updates/Pmoq8e-aet-presentation#question-section
“For the integration of efficiency of Optimal, we achieved over 70% gene integration to the cells. The other technologies described in this review paper from last year, you’re seeing the highest being 7.5% and several of them are much lower than that.”
“This is the benefit of Fusions technology, is having this very high integration efficiency, that then means we can screen a functions library size which is 10 fold higher than any of the competitor technologies”
The following is what Chatgpt had to say,
If their numbers hold up:
Integration efficiency
* Competitors: ~1–7%
* OptiMAL: >70%
That’s roughly:
* 10× better than best reported mammalian systems
* ~100× better than the weakest ones
That is not incremental — it’s an order-of-magnitude improvement.
Richard’s quote focuses on one of the core bottlenecks:
DNA integration efficiency → library size → discovery success.
If you improve integration:
more cells express antibodies
→ larger library
→ more rare binders
→ higher chance of finding a drug candidate
So going from 7.5% → 70% potentially means:
* ~10× larger usable libraries
* ~10× more antibodies screened per experiment
That is why he emphasizes “10-fold higher library size”.
You don't make these claims at the biggest antibody event of the year without validation from the NCI, The U.S. federal government's principal agency for cancer research...
No suprise the NCI want to continue using Optimal. We are currently awaiting this contract and should hopefully hear about it soon when approved by NIH ($48b Budget)
GLA
Sign In
Follow the stocks
