RE: VAL and PYC7 Sep 2020 18:11
Stigologist
If you’re reading this, could you possibly change Src inhibitor to Src and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Src is one of the tyrosine kinases, but there are many others, that are very similar molecules. I made a bit of an error in not mentioning other tyrosine kinases but didn’t go back to change it as just referred to it as Src throughout the post. A lot of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and general, in that they work to inhibit many of the tyrosine kinases, including Src. (that’s why dasitinib doesn’t work against solid tumours...it’s too broad, but why it’s great against leukaemia) We presumed before that any tyrosine kinase inhibitors would work against tumours, because they cover Src amongst others, but it hasn’t worked out like that. Ours is different because Of the reasons mentioned before With 201 targeting precisely the androgen to Src interaction, that’s why I’m hoping it’ll work better, due to its specificity. It is true that Src is involved in many different pathways, which is why it can and is being looked at for other things. Just wanted to clear that up as it’s been bugging me, thanks!
Oh and to answer Viera yesterday... 301 outcomes may or may not be related to 201, but there’s a strong positive correlation there. This is because 201 works on androgen OR oestrogen Interactions with the Src, so 201 would only need to be minimally tweaked to focus on oestrogen instead of male hormones and in theory should work the same way as for prostate cancer, if indeed it is ultimately successful.
The initial use of 301 to naturally look at would be breast or ovarian cancer (Which is why I said may or may not be related to 201, as in theory it should work, but there are different markers and pathways between the different types of cancer, that make that cancer behave slightly differently, so it’s never a given) , but as endometriosis seems to have a similar pathway in that it may be driven by oestrogen to Src interactions and proliferates the same as a solid tumour, it makes sense to use 301 in a novel way here, possibly alongside another molecule by the Japanese company. Interesting to see what they come up with, as they must have been comfortable with our 201 results to proceed.
401 is a different animal altogether.
And if anyone is wondering about my credentials for these explanations, I had breast cancer, which is why I have an interest in this area and went and researched it, even though it’s outside of my specialty. Also why I get excited when talking about these drugs, because I I genuinely really want them to work.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
