Member Info for inanaco

not for you NO ... you have already stated ... you don't understand it ..

Dephosphorylation is the removal of a phosphate (PO43-) group from an organic compound by hydrolysis. It is a """"reversible""" post-translational modification.

yes i have accepted that the science is to much for you ... and your not prepared to even try ..

sleep on it ......... Ruck

"""""" NONE of us understand it full stop.""""""

My point Ruck
you already stated "you dont understand the thread" ... bermuda agreed with you ...

why continue .. if its to much for you ?

perfectly explained ...........

The genetic instability of cancer cells favors the development of immunogenic clones,12,13 that are recognized by antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and dendritic cells, which stimulate the activation of CD8+ T-cells, which induce the killing of tumor cells. Inhibitory pathways that modulate and switch off the inflammatory response have evolved, in order to prevent the tissue damage derived from a prolonged activation of the immune system. Among these, the PD-1 axis dephoshorylates the T-cell receptor, induces T-cell apoptosis, decreases cytokine production, and favors the immune evasion of cancer cells.14 Agents targeting the PD-1 checkpoint disrupt this negative signaling, triggered by PD-L1/PD-L2, and restore T-cell antitumor function.

so a T cell generated by Scancell immunobody which stimulates the APC cell to activate a t cell ..... now targeting the TPR2 antigen on the cancer

t cell meets the cancer and is Turned OFF

by

"""" PD-1 axis dephoshorylates the T-cell receptor, induces T-cell apoptosis, decreases cytokine production"""

which is what Keytruda Blocks

RuckRover

Posted in: SCLP

Posts: 2,316

Price: 7.40

No Opinion

RE: Cliff Holloway's words . . .06 Sep 2019 14:02
“Scancell has Patents .. “

My point exactly, one of the many similarities between Scancell and “every other bio”

Ruck ... they don't have the same patents .. we are not the same as "every other bio" .... in factor the sector is vast .. so vast that you need sub sections, and further sub sections with in even immunotherapy ..

?
you get worse ..

the other day you discovered other Bio had patents ...

I just hope you can cope with all this brain activity ...

... lol Ruck/bermuda .. you cannot understand it, so you then think everybody else cant understand it .. ??

set the bench mark for your own intelligence guys ... but that is a bit rude of you to suggest that you know more than others
by using "none"

in fact i don't know what is worse ........... i have made a statement which you cannot disagree with so you come up with a complete load of nonsense so that you don't actually have to reply to the serious stuff

or

you just don't understand it full stop .

No .. circles here ...

you can ask Lindy at the AGM ... show her the thread

have i understood it or You

RE: Inanaco11 Sep 2019 18:02
never said it was Proven ... again your adding words

what i have always argued is that Keytruda and T cells are proven .... synergy

the only possible failure point is if SCIB1 did not engage a DC >>>> correctly ....

now efficacy in the trial is different then the debate, will a T cell generated by a DC which has been activated by SCIB1 add
to the existing immune response or indeed provoke one ...the synergy between the Keytruda MAB and a T cell has already been established ...

now try and find fault in that statement Ruck .... good luck with your square wheel

never said it was Proven ... again your adding words

what i have always argued is that Keytruda and T cells are proven .... synergy

the only possible failure point is if SCIB1 did not engage a DC >>>> correctly ....

now efficacy in the trial is different then the debate, will a T cell generated by a DC which has been activated by SCIB1 add
to the existing immune response or indeed provoke one ...the synergy between the Keytruda MAB and a T cell has already been established ...

even when i show you a wheel is round .. you will argue its square ...

Ruckrover ..

Give it a rest .. you don't have a clue what you are posting ...

how can you have indirect synergy ... ???

your trying to make the case that synergy may have an issue .. !!! in the trial ...

and i keep telling you its impossible ... Keytruda will lock onto any CD8 ... activated by a n APC ...

if it did not ... it would never have been approved

and that is proven because it causes other Immune issues ie Toxicity

so you have to show how Keytruda will not engage a Dendritic cell activated T cell ............. wow ... could luck with that one if your searching Google ...

Synergy - the combination of two substances to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects

keytruda is a MAB

this MAB locks on to T cells ....

so it fits the criteria of

""""two substances to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects """"

SCIB1 only engages Dendritic cells ... it does NOT engage T cells directly thus ""NO synergy""exists between SCIB1 and a T cell

its the Dendritic cell that has the ability to activate T cells ....

those t cells then synergies with Keytuda ... T cell and MAB combine to increase the T cells ability to evade cancer suppression ...

its very important that you separate how SCIB1 has synergy ...

because the Dendritic cells handle the T cells not SCIB1

all SCIB1 is doing is presenting an antigen to the DC's ...