Thanks Krone would have thought it means ICR and Sareum’s as they are the stakeholders in SRA737, that’s pretty black and white suspended development, I don’t think that’s been said before other than with total exclusion of SRA737 in Sierra’s RNS’s!
Hi all the Triparna Sen goes back a while and we were all very excited about it and just before the ASCO last June was the research presented, she did a presentation last November too for Sierra but nothing since that!
He’s been brought into commercialize momelotinib, so I wouldn’t expect a change of development from this too SRA737, a lot of unanswered questions we know nothing and it dosnt seam good from our point of view, even dropped trying to find a non-dilutive partner, looks like they will probably look to drag it further, I wonder what ICR are going to do about it, unbelievable!
Bullish trend intact, volume rising and coming off nicely today with a good recovery, I loved how the mm’s dropped a delayed 20k trade from the day before at 11.15 and at the same time dropping the bid to the same sell level @ 0.65 to spook people to sell and worked for one, then cancelled the 20k later on, the tricks they pull!
What’s a little more dilution to have a better position hand in negotiations, I would rather a bigger deal as it’s been a number of years for me, so another year and a raise would not concern me to firm up the position, I don’t think it’s beneficial too just get it done at all costs now, they have always said it late pre-clinical early clinical, the only way small companies have at their disposal is too raise cash of share offerings as there is too much risk involved with early stage biotech, and it’s not as if they have been extravagant like most companies on aim raising left right and center they do in my mind seam quite sensible in cash resources!
It’s an old publication, the research that forms part of the article on DNA Damage molecules which they refer too is from 2011 I think this article has a date on top of 2019 and 2018 :-
Anticancer Therapy With Checkpoint Inhibitors: What, Where and When?
Michelle D Garrett et al. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2011 May.
The reference to the CHK1 inhibitor as that identifying code dosnt exist anymore it changed to SRA737 so it’s old!
I’m sure UK will be doing a similar setup!
FDA issues two guidances to accelerate Covid-19 treatments
“The FDA on Monday evening issued two guidances intended to accelerate the development of products to treat or prevent coronavirus disease (Covid-19), laying out recommendations to help companies get to the investigational new drug application (IND) stage and clinical trial design considerations for later-stage studies.“
“FDA says the guidance is focused on the development of direct antiviral drugs or products with immunomodulatory activity”
Cytokine-Targeted Therapy in Severely ill COVID-19 Patients
Hi Stoney that’s what I’ve been saying, it’s a generic tweet not made directly by the company but a hired public relations company, you find they post it once we have here! The ones the companies will directly tweet will usual be the highly relevant ones, like the one in Jan/feb of the TYK2 I’m Cancer Publication or again might still be PR, i like too think they don’t have the time too observe the internet looking for links, but are gathering evidence why SDC-1801 would be a good fit molecule for the cytokine storm and over active inflammation and the application!
Hi Stoney couldn’t get that link! Thumbs up!
“Among 41 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia described by Huang and colleagues, the 13 patients requiring intensive care showed significantly higher serum levels of many cytokines and chemokines including IL-2, IL-7, IL-10, G-CSF, TNF-a, and IL-1Ra compared to those who were not in an intensive care unit (ICU). In comparison to healthy controls they also showed higher serum levels of IL-6, IL-9, IL-13, GM-CSF, IFN-?, IL-1ß, IL-8, and IL-17.
In a study of 50 COVID-19 patients, Hadjadj et al. found an increase in peripheral blood of IL-6 and IL-6-induced genes, TNF-a and TNF-a pathway-related genes, as well as IL-10.
Therefore, the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) targeting IL-6 and other cytokines with JAK-dependent signaling is one way to restrain the excessive level of cytokine signaling.”
It’s a different than JAK/Stat type or method by blocking certain Interleukins, a receptor antagonist binds a receptor ligands, all depends which, these ones block the :-
IL-1, IL-6, IL-18, and interferon ?
In the presentation it mentions IL-1ß - GM-CSF pathway blocked by virally-induced IFNa and IFN? until more knowledge is brought forward about what benefits JAK/Tyk2 then can compare more!
So what if so
So what if Sierra cannot find an interested party to fund further development with Stoney pointing out a clause that they must proceed with every endeavor to maintain progress what happens if they can’t, but have for-filled the every endeavor in finding partners and can’t, is that still a contract breach, and with a declaration to ICR that interested party’s are unable to proceed in the current environment, with all the good work they have achieved with the work and costs Nick will not want to give back the molecule and loose that, it’s not in their interest too, they will want too renegotiated contract milestones as per mentioned to continue, maybe dropping all interest in the RNS for DDR assets in the company model is a conscious move it has definitely got us thinking what’s happening and they could drag this out within the legal framework unless we they get the contracts repositioned because of X and Y it’s going to cost more going forward than originally thought there’s all kind of things happening imo, but we don’t know Jack it’s a chess game!
Perhaps the current valuation of the agreement made between Sierra Oncology and ICR that was agreed is too high in Sierra’s opinion as I think they were hoping for a better outcome as they based the strategy of CHK1 being of tumour agnostic development but as we know it is a particular in Gene Type!
“Substances to treat cancer based on the cancer’s genetic and molecular features without regard to the cancer type or where the cancer started in the body. Tumor-agnostic therapy uses the same drug to treat all cancer types“
So the valuation is reduced with not very good in monotherapy and for all gene types so now would cost more with research and expansion trials, it’s a bit silly as DDR was always a combo molecule as it needs a molecule to kill cancers first pushing the cancer cycle into “Replication stress” RS and what Chk1 does is stop certain cancer genes repairing itself, so how could Sierra expect Chk1 to be something it’s not, in my eyes monotherepy is to ascertain which gene network SRA737 has efficacy in no matter how much!
Hi Krone I don’t think Stephen Parker pressure is going to do much, it hasn’t done anything already not that he could and is just lip service to us investors to be satisfied that Sareum are doing something, but we are passengers unfortunately, as thoth said after results there may be a few months grace to decide if the data is worthy we can see it is in respect to no toxicity issues, high degree of synergies with other molecules, but he can use that as an excuse to drag out, then he could say understandable covid has effected plans they had or other companies plans into, so I’m negative as Nick has shown little respect to SRA737!
Tim has said that their preferred route would be on license, any company taking it on would have to have a lot of capital, (You wouldn’t just push forward in anogenital and not combos PARP/PD-L1 plus Milestones) think Sierra would have liked to partner it and have more of an involvement, ie have their cake and eat it by delaying as much as they can until they were in a better position to get going again, as they have enough money to get Mome throught to registration and have been looking for a non dilutive partner for coming up too a year, (after ASCO) has this now changed possibly with covid19 and company’s lost interest I think companies priority’s are Covid!
There is now no mention of DDR assets in the about Sierra the company section, always has one eye of the other asset the Cdc7 they have had for for god knows how long in pre-clinical and ever wondered that SRA737 could become like that, just held, the answer is we can speculate all we want that Gilead want SRRA because of SRA737 none of us know what is going on, I want to see a more of a link between Gilead/SRRA and SRA737 as haven’t seen anything yet, sure there could be some rationale for doing but SRRA was testing SRA with Mercks PD-L1 at the MD Anderson and I thought they were the interested party as was on the slides at ASCO, and Nick stated that they were speaking to a big immunetherepy company last year, but noting since that, I think Gilead give MOME back to SRRA as they couldnt do much with it and if SRRA could make it commercial then for Gilead to get something out of it rather than shelved would be much better financially!
Basically SRRA have had enough time to arrange the progression of SRA737 but nothing not even an update on anything to do with SRA737 it has been the same since last year “seeking non-dilutive partner” the only change is now they have dropped completely as it dosnt even exists, I don’t get it and don’t have enough information too second guess, the ICR will need the money as they have a new Cancer Research Center to fund the end of it £10m I think the article said, and them pushing the DNA polymerase test which there is an article about this and Paul Workman, Michelle Garret going back to 2017/2018 so why now issue the research recently, is it a public push to SRRA?
I would think that in business you have to get blood on your hands and start rattling the saber, but unfortunately I don’t think ICR are like this which are a clinical payed for by grants/charity and are not a business entity so I don’t think they are savvy in such, I really don’t know what’s going on but SRRA could always play the Covid19 card why they are not progressing now and can’t see anything short term unfortunately!