Member Info for marik

"...73 yr olds with red hair and 6 fingers might take to SNG001 better or worse than others. But the real top line stuff will be known."

Interesting point you make Doc. For the initial release of data you are unlikely to get this granularity although they can sometimes stratify for example: by amalgamating at home use and at hospital use as they've done in some studies. However judging by how SNG001 passed the recent phase in the US trial, the phase 1/2 of COPD and Covid in the UK, I have no doubt that the data will be of significance one way or another. Once the top line is announced, the expectation is that they will publish the data where it is peer reviewed and checked, at which point the nuances will be made visible to all those concerned.

However, at approval meetings for EUA they will have this data to hand even if the rest of us don't have it. In any case I don't think this is something to worry about at the moment.

Following on from previous discussions on how the test works, I've noticed a while back that Abingdon had a page on selecting antibodies for LFT. I believe we would fall into scenario 2:

2. “Commercial antibodies require sourcing so our client can use the antibody for a rapid test that will complement their product portfolio.”

Nice to see that the person mentioned in the article works for Abingdon and has over 15 years of experience in doing exactly what we would need doing. From the recent RNS we know that Abingdon scientists will be working on this particular aspect.

I've emailed them to see what their opinion is on the general length of time it can take for antibody selection and pairing.

GLA

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/selecting-antibodies-for-lateral-flow-assays/

End of discussion, I'll start a new thread on the subject on how the LFD works.

@BitL Can you please drop it. I've asked you before to change threads you don't want to. It's highly disruptive.

@Reaper007 I have to agree as per your previous post, I think there was a reason for them to provide the link, potentially FDA application and secondly as you've said and I'd missed potential time it takes to resolve the issues related. What seems evident is that the changes suggested don't seem to be taking more than weeks. My own experience tells me that this will come down to whether it's a simple case of a swap out of the antibody or whether they will go towards an extra robust mechanism to solve this (as mentioned by Monkshood). What became apparent long time ago was that there are antibodies used in the test, which was in the diagram provided by Medusa19. I think this will be an off the shelf fix and could take weeks.

I'll have to go through the links you've given in more detail to get a better understanding of how long it's taken others.

Here is what you actually wrote:

"It’s a kick in the teeth, whichever way you look at it...

"My confidence is targeting the Spike was based on using Affimers. Now knowing Ab’s are involved, I feel misled."

After which it becomes a discussion on how you feel misled. Anyways if you want to discuss how you feel misled, which I agree is important, then you should start a new thread.

Now moving on.

Original post was today at 06:07, discussing details of how the test works. However, 33 posts later (~4.5 hours) later @10:49am the discussion was changed to how you feel misled. I think that is important and you should discuss that in a separate thread.

Have a look at the original post, I posted it before for reference and I've added it below, it does not discuss you being misled until you've bought it up. You have a valid reason to discuss it, but this isn't the thread that was started.

Thanks all for the useful discussion last night. I think I can understand the details of how their test works now .
What it does though, is leave me surprised, that the company issued the rns in December when given how the test works, it was almost inevitable that Omicron was going to, at the least, cause a drop in sensitivity. I would have expected them to wait until they had more quantitative data before saying anything.
If I had realised how the test works I would have been more wary, and not topping up with some more shares after this announcement, my thinking was that it demonstrated that the test was robust to mutations in S - it will teach me to work harder at doing my research!
It will be interesting to see how they now modify it. The antibody component (because it binds at multiple sites) amplifies the signal and also provides some some protection against test failure due to a single mutations - the problem with Omicron was there were a lot of these, with a large number being in the most antigenic region of the S protein where antibodies typically bind.
Will they try and find a replacement polyclonal antibody where more bind to conserved regions of S, will they add a N component, or have they something else in mind? It is not just a case of swapping the antibody for a single Affimer as this would reduce sensitivity (and redundancy) in the assay.

Thanks Ian, I think I've had my fair share of guesses this week.

The original post below discusses how the test works. We've deviated from the subject because some people feel hard done by and I completely sympathise and understand. However, it deserves it's own discussion and thread.

Otherwise what's happening is other marginally related threads are inadvertently disrupted.

GL

----
Thanks all for the useful discussion last night. I think I can understand the details of how their test works now .
What it does though, is leave me surprised, that the company issued the rns in December when given how the test works, it was almost inevitable that Omicron was going to, at the least, cause a drop in sensitivity. I would have expected them to wait until they had more quantitative data before saying anything.
If I had realised how the test works I would have been more wary, and not topping up with some more shares after this announcement, my thinking was that it demonstrated that the test was robust to mutations in S - it will teach me to work harder at doing my research!
It will be interesting to see how they now modify it. The antibody component (because it binds at multiple sites) amplifies the signal and also provides some some protection against test failure due to a single mutations - the problem with Omicron was there were a lot of these, with a large number being in the most antigenic region of the S protein where antibodies typically bind.
Will they try and find a replacement polyclonal antibody where more bind to conserved regions of S, will they add a N component, or have they something else in mind? It is not just a case of swapping the antibody for a single Affimer as this would reduce sensitivity (and redundancy) in the assay.

The subject being discussed as by OP has now changed. You should start a new thread.

Might be a different Jupiter that was downgraded today?

JPMORGAN CUTS JUPITER FUND MANAGEMENT TO 'NEUTRAL' (OVERWEIGHT) - PRICE TARGET 290 (345) PENCE
UBS CUTS JUPITER FUND PRICE TARGET TO 255 PENCE - 'NEUTRAL'

https://www.lse.co.uk/news/JUP/london-broker-ratings-jupiter-fund-management-and-easyjet-downgraded-c2rtfta4elury5a.html

That is quite interesting Reaper007.

I have friends who are very senior at AZ in the oncology space. They took a look at this and said that this could become an acquisition target before phase 3 and potentially earlier if the price is right. I would love to see it commercialised and save lives across the world. If it means that it get's acquired and get's to market quicker via Big Pharma and I make a little less money, so be it.

GL

The original poster made a great call with this thread discussing the technicalities of the antibody production (thanks @Monkshood).

The thread has now for some reason moved along to something about personal grievances. I've made these kind of mistakes many times before in other companies where I haven't done my own research - it's part of the learning process. Initially I'd whine and complain coming across as naïve/whiney, but eventually you have to raise your hands and own your mistakes.

If you still can't get over it that you've missed something, I think it's worth it's own thread.

I think it's time to call it a night, perhaps stretch your legs and head out for a pint; decisions decisions.

Nice response @Bella6532, balanced and well put.

"realistic expectations rather than ramping but maybe too much to ask."

Happy to be educated. We know Avacta will replace the antibody.

Tell me what is the typical time frame for this in LFT design and manufacturing and what do you think it involves?

The next update will be PK PD top line.

Missed the key phrase *Manufactured* by Medusa19

They have manufacturing capacity, contrary to what some have said.

Let's be realistic and put aside the quirks and layman terms. SNG001 so far has had excellent results in many different trials which really puts a higher likelihood of the p3 being positive. Even if it's a little positive, it will be a game changer. Take your pick (small, middle or large). The time it takes for the results may vary a little due to the size, but that is not and should not be a factor right now. We've waited since Manic Monday - I'm now looking forward to Manic Monday 2.0

Again not sure what you are getting at. Okay it doesn't happen quickly as you want, so what?