Member Info for Narrative

There are 5 Special Resolutions and 8 Ordinary Resolutions that will be voted on. The website details these, and how to vote by proxy if required. The most obvious of these is whether to take the company private or not.

Another one that caught my eye is the approval (or not) of 20.1m share options + 5.5m share allotment. Add these together and you get 25.6m. Before delisting there were 57.1m shares, so if these options mature there'll be 82.7m in total. Result? The insiders would have over 30% of the company. That "30%+" mark is significant.

Mr Ross has some experience of de-listing biotechs. These include AIM listed BiVictrix Therapeutics, Redx Pharma, and E-therapeutics. These all seem to have ended up on the JP Jenkins marketplace: https://jpjenkins.com/marketplace/

where they can be traded via various regulated brokers (they provide the definitive list on the website as well as the "price"). So I wouldn't be surprised if Reneuron ends up there too.

There is a registry of shareholders, which, I'm guessing, can be checked against to validate any selling or buying.

...probably not then after today's RNS.

Https://www.terrapinn.com/congress/advanced-therapies/speakers.stm

During thelast AGM there was a resolution giving authority to the management to dilute the stock up to 20% for a capital raise (direct/indirect), if needed.

What I don't understand is this; exactly one month ago before the last RNS 11m shares were 'traded', mainly off market. That's about 20% of the stock, with not one TR-1 form published. Okay, some retail shareholders bought or sold at the same time, but the large trades remain a mystery to me. Could they be linked to a short or some other off market financial instrument? Views anyone?

Thanks Theoldmasdoneit. It looks like this news is now splashed all over the media. Reneuron's Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board, Stephano Pluccino, who was a co-author on the paper, has even been interviewed by ITV:

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-11-27/ms-breakthrough-could-lead-to-treatments-that-halt-diseases-progression

They did not use Reneuron's stem cell lines for this work but a similar source from Italy that, as far as I'm aware, has not been immortalised (it's worth fact-checking this). As Stephano stresses, it's only at the Phase 1 safety stage, but the stem cell/exosome area may pique investor interest again.

This latest work should not be underestimated in my view. Reneuron has clearly demonstrated, in vivo, payload delivery to specific tissues and without an immune response. This is what precision medicine is supposed to be all about.

The implication of their extensive work on stem cell lines and exosomes is that, in all likelyhood, all adult tissues retain a 'memory' of their stem cell origin which forms the basis for addressable access ; for classic cell-to-cell communication and for any therapies that can exploit it.

How many stem cell lines will be required to map the whole human body? Probably quite a lot, but Reneuron has begun to read/write this developmental atlas. They may even have enough stem cell lines to treat /target some conditions already.

The big pharma companies are sitting on huge piles of cash whilst their portfolios go off patent. They are pro- precision medicine too. I just hope they wake up and see this company is gold dust, or at least worth a punt. I will continue to invest here. Good luck all ,and, as ever, DYOR.

Allenby Capital Research Note released post-presentation. Their valuation of Reneuron for one exosome deal is now 55p per share.

https://www.allenbycapital.com/client/reneuron-plc/

Here's the link to the presentation:

https://www.reneuron.com/wp-content/uploads/Cell-2023_November-2023.pdf

...

the exosomes are incredibly small (and that's coming from a microscopist!) so manipulating these is difficult – it has taken years and the pharma industry will take several more to figure out various techniques and to develop instrumentation in order to eventually set industry standards. however, things are moving fast in this area.

the company has recently (see the latest rns) proved in vivo tissue targeting by exosomes produced by the company's immortalised cell lines using animal models. it's my understanding that there were three separate in vivo experimental arms carried out over the first half of 2023. two were successful whilst the third was ****ed up and had to be repeated. iain said during the agm that the repeated arm was expected to be completed at the end of september beginning of october (ie about now). i don't know any details of the experiments, but the rns was released 4th september, relatively early, so i surmise either, a) they got a wiggle on, or, b) the last arm was ****ed up again but non-essential to prove the case of targeting, or, c) they looked at a different aspect – such as loading exosomes then transporting the payload to a target tissue – which is obviously the ultimate goal...and pot of gold. this may or may not have worked, but it should in principle.

i'm relaxed about the conference no-show; i suspect the conference appearance was arranged way before the complicated in vivo experiments had concluded. i don't think it was ever advertised on reneuron's website either.

Hi Fred,

Here's my take on the current situation.

First, some historical context; Reneuron have gone from aiming to treat single disease indications (requiring long and expensive trials, in our case for stroke and RP) to a platform technology. Expensive trials can kill small biotechs...see Codiak. Chucking stem cells/pre-cursor cells loosely in to an area and hoping they magically self organise and survive, we now know, was asking too much of the little cellular blighters. They were best guesses at the time, so I can't fault them for at least trying. We have learned that putting a baby in an old people's home does not make everyone in it young again! But the science has moved forward rapidly since. Who knew 20 years ago that there was a cell-to-cell communication network that pre-dates the rise of multi-cellular organisms or that cellular clocks could be reversed?

The company's m.o. has mutated into providing shuttlebuses aka exosomes for potentially pre-existing and new therapeutic payloads to specific structures in the body. Why is this homing to certain areas so important? Many many drug trials have failed and will continue to fail due to off-target toxicity. So many Phase 1, 2, & 3 trials have flunked – think of the lost lives, billions of dollars and personal reputations ruined over the decades because of adverse events during trials. The sad thing is that many therapeutic molecules themselves were shown to be very effective at treating the diseased cells in vitro but this came at a too higher price in terms of side effects (toxicity) when put in to human volunteers. What if some of these drugs/molecules could be sent exclusively to their intended target? That's a very big win if it can be pulled off...and why I'm interested in this company.

Reneuron's history in stem cell technology is not a complete waste of time and effort, far from it, imo. They have a stem cell line that has been immortalised and can give rise to many pre-cursor cell lines which are, in turn, immortal. Without this immortalisation cellular aging issues will likely kick in and screw things up. I suspect many other stem cell candidates do not have this valuable characteristic. They have also been shown via stem cell implantation to be safe in humans (stroke and RP trials) which is obviously an important consideration for therapy credibility when considered by a regulatory body.

It's at the pre-cursor cell point at which specificity (ie. tissue targeting) comes in to play. These need to produce, amongst other things, a consistent and reliable output (of homing exosomes) in order to be considered by pharma for industrial processes and reliable treatments. That is why the immortalised cell IP is necessary and so valuable along with the tissue targeting properties. Both are essential in my view.

continued....

Clivealive,

I think many of us are a bit in the dark as to why the stroke and RP trials were abandoned (on scientific grounds rather than, ahem, any other reason). However, I think an explanation of sorts can be found in a recent lecture given by Professor Jack Price who puts these into context - he was actually involved with the Reneuron stroke research and uses this as an example along with a few others that are equally informative. RP is brought up in the Q&A bit.

Obviously we all hope Leonard is well...but the prof also demonstrates the danger of using single examples flashed over the media giving false hope to sufferers. He gives the example of Duke University selling autism stem cell therapy EVEN AFTER their Phase 2 trial failed. Insane.

If your interested, the lecture is titled, "The Future of Brain Repair: the prospects for stem cell therapy" and was given on 23rd June 2023. It's on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p1zekBu7MY

It's over an hour in length...you could skip the first 20 mins. But overall its pure gold!

DYOR.

The CSO will be presenting on the 6th September in Boston, MA, with a talk entitled, "Targeted Delivery of Therapeutic Payloads Using Stem Cell- Derived Exosomes". I'm hoping it will summarise the latest work.

https://exosomebased-therapeutics.com/speakers/

For what its worth, here's my view on where exosome tech could take us...

Many diseases are directly linked to cellular aging, aka senescence, aka dysregulation. Medicine has historically treated the symptoms (eg. arthritis, kidney disease, heart disease, etc) of this dysregulation rather than the cause. Think pain relief or chopping out and replacing of a joint, or using blood thinners perhaps. It has been assumed that such an aging process at the cellular level is inevitable and therefore untreatable. This view may need revision if you consider the latest findings using exosomes. An example of this, IMO, is here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-39370-5

Capricor Therapeutics in the US had a hand in this particular research, but I think this should be used as an exemplar for exosome development, given the obvious massive potential. Hell, it could even save the NHS! DYOR.

$70M Series 'A' funding for eye therapies using stemcell/ iPSC and possibly exosome tech? Could make a nice partner, if they're not already! That said, they could be competition...

https://www.tenpointtherapeutics.com/press-releases/tenpoint-therapeutics-launches-with-70-million-series-a-financing-to-reverse-vision-loss-through-engineered-cell-based-therapeutics-and-in-vivo-reprogramming/

One of the founders, Peter Coffey, I think has done work with Reneuron in the past at UCL. DYOR.

The loss of two major shareholders within six months seems, at best, unfortunate, with the last beginning to dump shares in March.

The annual report issued today gives us the actual reason why Iain bought 400,000 shares. On page 40 the notes state that his £175k bonus is dependent on him using £75k of it in buying Reneuron shares. He has spent £55,838 so far (see p77). So he could "buy" around 250,000 more at current prices, give or take. I don't consider this as a vote of confidence by a director if his hand is forced, even if he does sound enthusiastic. I say back your company with YOUR savings like us shareholders...then I just might trust what you say.

FYI his share options, 750,000 in total, are triggered at 10p/31p/50p with no link to performance. Nice. DYOR.

IMO any CEO can really say whatever they want to sound convincing, as such mutterings are subject to the Disclaimer at the start of the presentation. Forward looking statements are guesses, by definition. For me, a question remains; how much do I trust the management not to finesse the experimental data (which can sometimes be quite easy even if unintentional)? Are the experiments blinded in any way or subject to continuous independent oversight (hello scientific board members) to weed out biases? Will they be published in full? Can the results be reproduced? I have my fingers crossed that all is in safe hands. Science aint easy. DYOR.

"Homeostasis" typo. Sorry. The rate of improvement appears to be correlated to the initial degree of retinal damage...much like plastering a wall...slap on a base layer quickly then put a bit more time and effort getting a smooth topcoat surface. The body is a wonderful thing indeed.

I agree. I recommend plotting the RP trial data on a suitably formatted graph...a much easier way to discern trends in data compared with tables. I think 'tables-only' is an RNS format restriction and has nothing to do with Reneuron, so they have my sympathy here. There is enough data to make some common sense inferences nonetheless. The results remain fascinating and exciting in my view; there is an interesting hint of a modulated response to the therapy - where the body applies the 'brakes' before the stop sign in terms of improvement (ie homiostasis in action).DYOR.