Member Info for Fadec92

Hi Brighty I’ve heard of I’ll give it another 3 months from investors since the time of unrest in August 2019 I think issues with the formulation have been dressed up, I’m sure pre-clinical was initially aimed at the first quarter in 2020 so I think obviously this has been the issue, if they are able to sort it out with the formulation then great, but what indications are they targeting what are we focused on, keeping options open with an indication is not an option as it’s seam different selectivity of JAK kinases target different indications, so which one dose it suit, what is the data saying over too John/Tim and is there an updated patent for it or are we relying on old patent for sdc-1801 not an issue with 1802!

Brighty they have been in discussions for years, they have also been trying to reach MTD for over 20 months so next year will be short of two years, have now decided to change formulation and told today when have too, and key objectives for this year have not been achieved so these are the facts!

Key Objectives

· Complete preclinical (IND-enabling) studies with at least one candidate by the end of 2020.

· Decide on the initial target indications during 2H 2020 as part of preparation for first-in-human studies.

· Build a robust preclinical data package to support ongoing partnering activities.

I haven’t checked the wordings of previous RNS too hold too account “targeted completion date early in the new year.”

Is the higher doses a good thing, opening up a debate needs to be asked is there an issue, I think it was two months ago I posted that why is this MTD taking a long time can’t remember but it’s been a thing for years, so there was issues with old formulation because a newer one has been targeted too get what they need too achieve!

It is presented well, but they didn’t complete a pre-clinical this year which is what they said they would achieve in RNS’s all year, so a new formulation too achieve higher doses!

I’m new too this company and don’t read here often, haven’t heard of investors talk on twitter and pro-active of their their assets but know that the Nickel prices are rising and have seen the B4-7 nickel-copper-cobalt-PGEs deposit mentioned on Proactive which were not progressed as the commodities prices were low and the chance discovery at BAM took over the interest!

Was looking at the chart with the price getting nearer the long term median line which is v.good to break as it opens up too a bigger upside!

21 year mining lease, a potential open pit mining and gold recoveries between 97% and 99% in a safe Jurisdiction in Canada also has other assets that have not been talked about!

LY2880070 Eli Lilly, Esperas

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02632448

Thanks Stoney, the first link your line :-

“There was a patent application made 13 March 2019 (#20190210983) which upon reading refers to our Autoimmune compound (SDC-1801).”

This is for SDC-1802 as in the 8th Oct RNS, and is the 16/351620 US patent, I’ve added the page of the patent with the number you have above matching the US patent number that I’ve put in over my past posting history!

https://imgur.com/a/oCCfCf3

The second link we know is also SDC-1802 as it’s T-All!

So what I’m saying and been saying since October there is no updated US patent for SDC-1801!

Num4 my point is your last paragraph, as years go on, so do you think there is a takeover going on?

There’s no protection in the US Patent office yet for T-ALL, that one as is under examination!

With T-All Tyk2 is the target!

https://imgur.com/a/luFrMA9

Therapeutic Rationale

Tyrosine Kinase 2 (TYK2) is a member of the JAK kinase family and a key component of the JAK-STAT signalling pathway. The scientific literature, supported by Sareum’s research, shows TYK2 to be a key therapeutic target in the rare leukaemia, T-ALL. Intensive chemotherapy regimens are currently used to treat patients, and outcomes for resistant or relapsed disease are poor.
Activation of the TYK2-STAT1-BCL2 pathway in T-ALL occurs via TYK2 activating mutations and/or IL-10 dependent TYK2 activation. Thus TYK2 inhibition is potentially an innovative, targeted and personalised approach to treating T-ALL. There is also literature evidence for TYK2 involvement in other cancers, and in resistance pathways to other therapies.

Num4 I’m not sure on that as there is a 55x times more Tyk2 than JAK1 for the IC50 of 1802 looking at the data!

SDC-1802 patent

IC50 Selectivity against JAK family Kinase Assays!

TYK2 = 1.52nM
JAK1 = 83.4nM
JAK2 = 106nM
JAK3 = 164nM

Ok Stoney great if you can!

Here is the link for the Patent search I would say that SDC-1801 and the US patent comes under the 2014 and US patent number 14/529902 and number 5 on the list in the previous link, so too me there’s no updated sdc-1801 in the US!

OXAZOLE TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITORS

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=reader+John+charles&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PG01

Yes I agree with you 1801 Autoimmune and 1802 as cancer! 1802 (old 20351)

It’s confusing for me too because 16/351620 RNS 8th Oct stated that it finished the protection for 1802 but 16/343639 is for 1802 as T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia which we know is 1802 it’s it’s for solid tumors and T-all!

It’s only these two in the US Patent office, I’ve search numerous times so there’s not one for 1801 there!

Here is the search process for an application for a US Patent called AppFT on the USPTO (US Patent & Trademark Office)

https://imgur.com/a/Dv6IAwR

Hi Stoney Sdc-1801 is not in the US patent office for a re-newed patent, 16/351620 was notice of Allowance RNS dated 8th October and 16/343639 Is for T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia!

Hi Num4 so then why did Sareum then try with the second molecule and try and get a more selective Tyk2 in 1802 as this is away from all other jaks1/2/3?

The Tyk2 that is presented in figure 1 is Tyk2 1.6nm against jak2 33nm where Sareum is 0.6nm against 26nm so on this molecule 1801 would be more selective, and the article is saying it’s challenging but they wanted more differentiation away from Jak2 and other Jaks imo they had a better method for what they were trying too achieve in a selective Tyk2, Sareum then went on too achieve a better more selective Tyk2 than the first one (below figures) which they were trying to achieve more differentiation, by changing the molecule difluorophenyl to dichlorophenyl group and improved the separation between Tyk2 vs all other JAK 1/2/3 so a more selective Tyk2.

TYK2 = 1.52nM
JAK1 = 83.4nM
JAK2 = 106nM

But still against the BMS their molecule has a Tyk2 0.2nm vs 10000nm against all other JAK’s!

Num4 I’ve looked at the comments on the Billion dollar post, I can only find evidence that doesn’t support your theory of why BMS have Allosteric inhibitors

“so why have BMS and Nimbus got allosteric compounds, because the catalytic site is patent protected for anything that has the compound structure that does the job on tyk2. They know this and have had to settle for allosteric.”

BMS Allosteric Tyk2 inhibitor was applied for in 2013, Sareums Oxyzole tyrosine inhibitors Catalyic which were for FLT3, FLT4 and Aurora kinases when approved so BMS could not not have not be able too create a Tyk2 Catalyic patented molecule because Sareum had the patent for Tyk2 catalytic as you suggested as at the time Sareum didn’t know they had a Tyk2 as it’s only the last couple of years that they realized they had a selective Tyk2 by paneling one of the kinases from the Oxyzole tyrosine inhibitors Catalyic FLT3, FLT4 and Aurora kinases and realized they had a selective Tyk2 inhibitor!

Also from this research showing BMS looked at Cataylic inhibitors and thought that the differentiation of the compounds was not good enough too what they wanted too achieve

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071835/#!po=0.704225

Under fig 1 Known TYK2 JH1 ligands. (Ballpark nM ranges to 1801)

And that Pusedokinase was the target

https://imgur.com/a/4Rzkf2h