Member Info for inanaco

question to lindy ..........

I have been been thinking about this .. naive CD4 T cell from a patient is given the TCR from a moditope reactive CD4 T cell .. but the difference is our moditope cd4 has already "differentiated" into a Cd4 killer .. is this differential carried over by the TCR ? or does the T cell need to have a further engagement with a DC with the correct cytokine environment to develop the correct epigenetic modifications needed

response

Excellent question. We pre-activated and differentiate the CD4 T cells before we transduce them with the Moditope TCR.
Kind Regards,
lindy

Bermuda .. yes ...

they are screening the consequence of the patent after blood has been exposed to it

but the sequence as a dna and as an RNa ........... has a consequence , the same as the peptide .. so you have to protect the nucleic acid sequence otherwise BioNtech could generate a RNA vaccine sequence and break the patent

Its my view that ....

when you give a vaccination no activated T cells will be exactly the same, thus you may end up with 50 TCR's each able to clonal expand differently .. .... it would be impossible to then try and replicate the RNA in every individual T cell that is being exposed to a single peptide then writing that sequence generated into a patent .... 50 times .. or 1000 times then the little critters adapt as well ..

Hi Bermuda thanks for the links .......

I will try and explain ..

the TCR's are a consequence of the patents .... you cannot generate the TCR without the patent, the reason why the patent is so strong is because the epitope is "modified" via Citrullination or homocitrulline while the non citrulinated did not induce the TCR this relates back to what Burble was discussing with the Two peptides sequences in the patent for the same epitope .. the other day

thus you do not need a specific patent for the transfecion of RNA from T cell to T cell because that can only be generated by the patent as a consequence

Hi Max
The science attracts the money ... but the money does not dictate the science .. if it did the trial would fail ...

which is one of the reasons why we have regulatory authorities .........

example the O rings in the shuttles booster rockets ........ Money wanted more launches .......... the engineers wanted it fixed people died ..........

amplivant ......... the SP falls because Scancell improved the science !! blaming delays from what we expected in 2013

the science in the mouse efficacy went up 30% and the amount of Peptide used dropped to 1/10th

and still they moaned because the manufacture was so difficult ........ to scale up

Now we are clear of that ............ the SP still has not recovered .......... Money it seems always gets it wrong

ATB ...

let the science follow protocol ....

busy on other things so just filling in any gaps .... after a quick read

Inflection points as trials progress can generate Dividends

if our only Risk is to be bought out ... ...........

yawn ......

you missed the point of the dividend stream ......

Other Funds who look for solid dividend streams would happily take the stock in one deal ....... from Redmile etc

i think your getting a bit confused ... the current Flu vaccines are not antibody based, but generate an antibody response, however every antibody response will have a cognitive CD4 / CD8 ... response but only against the target that the antibody has assigned itself ..

none of the Current approved Flu vaccines are MRNA/Viral transfected/DNA

last post .....

what does this mean

Once over £100m market cap other funds can well start to build a position which would help drive the SP up but of course dilute control to a very small degree.

how does the SP rising ..... "dilute control"

anyway i will leave this topic for now..... not spending all day on here again ...

how they exit ... i have no idea ...

Had you thought about the fact Investment funds also like "Dividends" .....

amazing what royalties can deliver

Well i am sure Burble will correct your understanding ....

But if you feel my posts have no standing and you Feel Burbles Stamp of approval is required, that what i am posting is plausible.. than i am happy for Burble to peer review me ....

now these collaborations create spin offs .......... Its "My" considered opinion .. scancell searching for the Perfect CD4 T cell to transfect .... via the BioNtech Collaboration had to develop a means of identifying and expanding them .. MAB2811 is probably a spin off ... otherwise i don't see why they would have developed it .... ? So this tells you Scancell is Knee Deep in the technology of TCR ... indeed bringing in more specialist because of it ....

I hope those questioning "No News" don't mistake that for "failure"

They have done it before ............ the ""designer"" Mouse developed to specifically to test Moditope

Scancell i believe has characterised approx 7 moditope epitope .................. another 30 to go

Scancell discovered Homocitrulline characterising a few epitopes for Modi2 ........ how many more will be discovered ?

all under patent ...

if Scancell want to expand fast ............ it does deals based around research of epitopes for specific targets within the moditope Patents .... search Immunocore pipeline and you can see this model ...

Projects fully funded non dilutionary

by the way Redmile and Vulpes have an exit Ivy .,............ its the stockmarket if they so wish

example if you trust your science ....

look lets not talk money ... lets collaborate .. get your scientist to understand what they are dealing with build that experience with us so your fully up to speed of the potential of the product giving you the confidence to take it commercial

4 commercial collaborations

Tick Tock

mmm if you look at the research papers they contain more than one name .. ATB Ivy

Scancell is not Run by Redmile or Vulpes

the whole point about operating the Model is that you don't get involved beyond phase 2 ....the scientist stay in Inventive mode not bogged down with collating and statistics of these very big trials

yes ...

obviously its easy to upgrade a chip design each year .. it does not need approval

but the principle is the same ....

dedicated team of "inventors"
Not bogged down with sales, manufacture etc
Constant revenue stream from Royalties especially if the scientist "Trust" the invention it means you can back end load the deals so actually efficacy is fully priced in ie so your taking on more of the risk because its your invention and experience which the counter party does not have ... so prices in accordingly and a lot lower that if it had the clinical data

i have no issues at all with this model .... its why i am here backing my own risk assessment .. which currently stands at zero because of the Known SCIB1 data relative to SP .... effectively nothing else is priced in ...