Member Info for LSBM

After validating its digital platform with top-tier pharma like J&J, TRLS is now targeting contracts with CROs, which are the gateways to a much broader clinical trial market. This strategy could turn TRLS from a project-based, early-stage biotech into a real platform business with steady, growing revenues. Any success converting their current deal pipeline—now at advanced stages—could see recurring contracts per trial, opening the door to multi-year, multi-study revenue opportunities.

Preferred vendor status with major CROs massively enhances the company’s commercial reach. If even one or two of these deals close and perform well, it will validate the tech and move TRLS a big step closer to sustainability. Execution risk remains, but this pivot is exactly what shareholders need to see to turn potential into value.

Anyone unclear about the revenue potential, see slide 6: https://angleplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ANGLE-2024-Prelims-Presentation-28may25.pdf

The key points reflect their “Large Pharma Strategy,” which focuses on companion diagnostics to support next-generation cancer drugs, including ADCs, DDR inhibitors, and immunotherapy combinations. Highlights include:

• Companion diagnostics improve clinical trial success, reduce costs, enable real-time non-invasive cancer assessments via simple blood tests, and lead to better patient selection and higher reimbursement and adoption.

• The pharma companion diagnostic pathway outlines revenue potential across clinical trial phases:

• Phase 1 (Year 1): £0.2m to £0.7m

• Phase 2 (Years 2-3): £1.2m to £3.6m

• Phase 3 (Years 4-5): £15m to £45m

• Companion Diagnostic commercial phase (Year 6 onwards): £20m to £100m per annum

• Costs per patient in Phase 2 cancer trials average around US$180,000, with clinical trial support priced at ~£3,000 per sample processed.

• Margins are expected to improve with increased pricing power, volume economies, process improvements, and automation.

• The strategy targets a large market, with over 2,000 cancer drugs in development, offering significant commercial upside for ANGLE’s assay development, clinical trial testing services, and eventual companion diagnostic offerings.

This model demonstrates a scalable revenue build from early assay development through to high-value companion diagnostic products supporting cancer therapies, underpinning ANGLE’s growth outlook for its large pharma customer base.

AGL’s partnership with Immatics in multiple trials across early to late phases boosts immediate clinical services revenue, validates Parsortix at scale, and establishes a foundation for future broad adoption as a companion diagnostic. It complements AGL’s expansion with other pharma collaborators and supports a recurring revenue model critical to long-term commercial success.

Second-highest rising stock on LSE.

Berenberg target price 40p.

While the contract hasn't quiet landed I for one appreciate the update. The lack of contingency language suggests that Trellus Health is betting on imminent contract completion it still represents a material risk if either contracts fail to materialise within the next six weeks. However, given Trellus’s recent partnership with J&J , the current “leading global CRO” very likely refers to one of J&J’s long‑term outsourced CRO partners such as IQVIA or Parexel, both of which manage extensive mid‑stage gastrointestinal and immunology trial portfolios. Therefore, the partner is most plausibly a Tier‑1 CRO such as IQVIA, Parexel, or possibly ICON plc—companies that handle mid‑phase trials for major IBD therapies, the potential commercial scale could be significant. These organisations command multibillion‑dollar annual revenues and operate at global capacity across all trial phases. Such an arrangement could transform Trellus current near‑term solvency risk into a structured growth runway and predictable recurring revenue stream across CRO‑sponsored trials.  It's going to be close and not for the faint hearted.

A third of the daily avg volume traded within the first 30 minutes of opening. Almost all buys perhaps an update RNS incoming.

It appears that a series of stop-losses or automatic sell orders were triggered.

Perhaps it will be useful to know whether they have enough of the compound to run another trial. This was also a source of a long wait previously.

Perhaps the investor is making money before the announcement is made, a dilutive raise may not be imminent. May explain why the raise was advertised again, knowing it would result in a shake-down. Only time will tell.

We don't debate drug names, so don't understand why it's different for diagnostics? It’s essential to recognise that biotech and pharmaceutical company names typically adhere to a structured naming convention, reflecting the industry's norms and regulatory frameworks. Unlike typical corporate renaming, these names are carefully chosen to convey the company’s scientific focus, therapeutic area, and sometimes the stage or nature of the pipeline. Scientific naming matters to specialist diagnostic customers because clear, standardised terms ensure accurate test identification, reduce confusion, and enable precise clinical decision-making. These customers—clinicians, researchers, and healthcare systems—rely on consistent naming to trust test results, integrate diagnostics correctly into care pathways, and deliver safe, effective patient outcomes. Poorly named tests risk misinterpretation, incorrect treatment, and diminished confidence in diagnostic technology, which can ultimately impact patient health and healthcare efficiency.

Some would say we have a strong leader at the helm who has turned things around on several similar occasions; https://www.dxorange.com/about

Perhaps the rise will not be so detrimental. Looking at his background in mergers and acquisitions, he may even find private investments. Only time will tell.

I've seen a few P&Ds, but this may just be a leak, as it seems to have attracted 53m shares traded, where a 10-day average of 5.2m. Plus it has impacted the price a fair bit. I think the trouble with this share is frustration, so people are also looking to get out at any opportunity. We will soon find out this afternoon if it is, in fact, a P&D.

Goldminer, MTL issued its Q3 2024 quarterly update on 16 October 2024.

Q3 results are due imminently and, while some are bracing for a softer set of numbers, I see this as a potential launchpad quarter if management play it right.

If we get the long-awaited resource update from Dupax, it could be a real game-changer. An uplift in reserves and or grades would instantly strengthen mine-life projections and underpin a higher valuation, reminding the market this asset still has plenty of untapped potential.

On top of that, any announcement on mine build progress, financing development, or new drilling campaigns would send a strong signal that Metals Exploration is pressing ahead with expansion. These are the moments where a miner moves from “holding ground” to “building momentum”.

Importantly, the recent strength in gold prices provides a welcome tailwind, helping to offset some of the near-term impact from the BIOX processing issue that dented production earlier in the quarter. With higher realised prices feeding through, the revenue base remains resilient even as operations normalise.

This quarter might read as tough in the raw numbers, but if management couples them with concrete growth catalysts, Q3 could well be remembered as the pivot point before stronger years ahead. A reminder: it’s not just about past performance – it’s about the pipeline, and I think that’s about to get a lot more exciting.

I’m a little disappointed that the CNS and BBB work with Receptor AI won’t wrap up by the end of this year as originally suggested. Instead, it now seems the data won’t be available until “around year-end to early next year,” with any meaningful progress only expected in “early next year.” On top of that, we’re still waiting on Sareum to deliver the long-anticipated journal publication, an initial tox study readout, and updates on 737. This delay just adds to the growing list. Meanwhile, there’s still nothing on how the partnering discussions are progressing.

Hemogenyx’s CDX antibody enables biomarker-based diagnostics because it is designed to specifically bind to the FLT3 protein, a biomarker highly expressed on the surface of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and some acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) cancer cells. This bi-specific antibody binds both FLT3 on cancer cells and CD3 on T-cells, redirecting the patient’s immune cells to selectively attack only those cancer cells that express the FLT3 biomarker.

The critical biomarker-enabling aspect is that CDX’s binding to FLT3 has about 10 times higher affinity than its binding to CD3, which prevents it from activating T-cells unless FLT3-positive target cells (leukemic cells) are present. This means that CDX can distinguish malignant cells via their FLT3 marker and activate immune response only in their presence, reducing off-target effects and immune-related side effects. Thus, CDX functions both as a therapeutic agent and as a biomarker-enabled diagnostic tool, identifying and targeting cancer cells with the FLT3 biomarker for highly precise treatment.

It has also been reported in the RNS 2 and 6 for August, where MTL explicitly stated that a 5-kilometre section of access road to the Dupax project area—entering from the southern side of Runruno—is currently under construction. Once completed, this section will facilitate haulage access for potential trucking of ore between Dupax and the Runruno processing plant, should economic grades be discovered and developed at Dupax.

Mechanistic and Technical Differences

• CAR-T is a cellular immunotherapy where T-cells are engineered to express receptors that target cancer, used as a direct intervention for blood cancers with powerful, sometimes curative, effects.

• CDX is a diagnostic product—not a therapy—designed to guide treatment decisions, ensuring that only appropriate patients (those with the target antigen/biomarker) are selected for therapies such as CAR-T. It is often a requirement for regulatory approval of targeted therapies.

Commercial Implications of the Difference

• Therapy vs. Enabler: CAR-T is the revenue-generating primary treatment, while CDX generates revenue as an enabler or requirement for deploying CAR-T and similar therapies. CDX sales are tied to therapy adoption rather than used as stand-alone interventions.

• Regulatory and Reimbursement Impact: The pairing of CDX with CAR-T is increasingly mandated by regulators. Successful commercialization of CAR-T increasingly relies on an approved CDX to support diagnosis, stratification, and monitoring, influencing market access speed and payer reimbursement.

• Manufacturing and Scalability: CAR-T faces challenges in scaling personalized production, high cost per dose, and logistical hurdles in treatment delivery, which affects both adoption rate and gross margins. CDX solutions, while less lucrative per unit, can be widely scaled with lower production complexity. Companion diagnostics also open additional licensing and partnership avenues for the company.

• Barriers and Value Creation: CAR-T therapy requires significant investment in clinical trial infrastructure and manufacturing; without a companion diagnostic, product adoption is limited. By bundling a CDX with CAR-T, companies can differentiate, de-risk, and expedite approval, increasing commercial value while potentially enabling broader indications.

Perhaps this article has brought in new investors. Catchy headline; https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-10p-penny-stock-outperformed-072600343.html