Member Info for pickedpeck

My daughter is getting married in Scotland at the end of this month, I'm sailing there and back and for the most part won't have internet access for around 3 weeks, and won't be browsing the web at the wedding!

Obviously that means I won't be posting here, but also could miss some fairly critical events coming up.

- Methylation clock data from the SLAB trial

- Biopsy and histological data from the same trial

- Details of animal health partnership negotiation

- Partner equity stake?

- TR1s for new or changed holdings (notably missing post warrant exercises)

- Glaucoma progress report

- Acuitas MASH progress report

- More videos from Eric

- Anything else?

Anyway, haven't sold a share before the start of my personal black out, so good luck all and looking forward to catching up on what's happened around the second week of June. I wonder where the price will be 🤔

While it doesn't specifically name drop Genflow or SIRT6 it is relevant and important to the MASH IND process.

The poster provides the specific Bio-Infrastructure validation required for Genflow’s MASH (liver) program.

The research proves that Acuitas LNPs can achieve targeted liver gene expression in primates without toxic profiles.

This De-risks SIRT6 MASH delivery. The value is in the delivery vehicle that Genflow is now partnered with. Genflow’s pivot to mRNA delivery was theoretical until this poster confirmed the vehicle is "primate-proven" for liver targeting—the exact target for Genflow's lead GF-1002 candidate.

Big Pharma companies looking at SIRT6 don't just ask "does it work?" they ask "how do you get it into the liver?" This poster answers the hardest part of that question. It proves the platform is Partnership Ready.

Not a bullseye immediate boost for genflow, but separate validation of the tech and another step on the roadmap.

Offgrid,

That's the issue now, and RNS could drop any time. Can't understand anyone selling at the moment, you would have to have ignored everything the company has said since Jan 1st or be desperate for cash.

Scratch that. Sorry shouldn't post in the middle of the night. The May 9th RNS from last year says that the shares were issued to Dr Leire but passed on to a "purchaser". On May 12th Dr Moayyed Al-Qurtas issued a TR1 saying they had passed a threshold on the 9th of May and now held 4.45% of the company.

This implies Porter's theory of Marex being involved is correct. Al-Qurtas likely bought their 4.45%, about 20m shares, from this Marex block and (mistakenly) issued an RNS on the 12th of May stating their holding. (Mistakenly as the shares were not admitted until the 15th of May).

The rest would have gone to a concert party of investors, none of which crossed the 3% TR1 threshold individually.

The warrants issued at the same time I would assume landed in the same hands as the shares.

The exercise of 28m warrants from that issue could have been by concert party members, or more likely by Marex on their behalf at a 12 month anniversary. Some jurisdictions treat taxation on purchases differently, a 12 month anniversary being significant for tax reasons, especially in the Middle East.

If that's the case we may not see a TR1 even though it's more than 3% of shares issued to the warrants.

As a PS - The warrants, in my view, we're almost certainly exercised by Dr Leire.

- The RNS states the exercise was related to warrants from the 8th of May 2025, only Dr Leire got shares on that date.

- The RnS also indicates warrants from the March 2026 issue, again likely Eric Leire.

Make of it what you will, but it looks pretty bullish to me. The CEO is putting his own money in to clear the cap book just before some sort of major deal is announced, likely an equity stake partnership. I'd suggest he has added shares in order to retain control, or has been pressured to reduce the warrant position prior to a transaction.

Either way, the CEO putting £360k of his own money into shares is usually treated as a positive.

Under UK MAR Article 17, adding that paragraph to RNS announcements is a high-conviction regulatory flag. Here's why.

1. The "Legitimate Interest" of Delay

Under MAR, a company is legally required to disclose price-sensitive news "as soon as possible." The only reason they can hold news back is if they have a "legitimate interest"—most commonly, ongoing negotiations where an early leak would jeopardize the deal. The fact that GENF has been using the MAR tag consistently since February confirms they are in a "Protracted Process" (FCA Handbook terminology).

2. The "Insider List" Lockdown

The moment a MAR tag is used, a formal Insider List must be created. Everyone on that list—directors, lawyers, and now these warrant holders, is subject to extreme scrutiny. You don't keep an Insider List active for 90 days unless the "Inside Information" is of a fundamental corporate nature (e.g., a Tier-1 Licensing deal or a major data breakthrough).

3. Why the Warrant RNS was Tagged

Warrant exercises are often routine admin and don't require a MAR tag. By tagging this one, the Board is making a legal admission: The exercise is happening while the company is in possession of separate, undisclosed, price-sensitive information.

The Implication:

If the warrant holders were just "flipping," the Board wouldn't need to declare MAR. The tag suggests the holders were "cleansed" of inside info regarding the UCLA data or the Final Term Sheet specifically to allow this exercise to happen before the news goes public.

4. The 90-Day Fuse

A MAR-protected negotiation rarely lasts longer than 90–100 days before the "legitimate interest" in secrecy is outweighed by the market's right to know. Since the first tag appeared on February 11th, we are now at Day 87.

Bottom Line: The MAR tag is the Board’s way of saying: "We are sitting on a bombshell, and we’ve cleared the cap table so we can finally let the explosion happen."

The MAR tag has been active since 11th of Feb. It's starting to feel like a hybrid equity plus licensing deal, the MAR label has been running a long time now. The fact the inside list is still active means the company has been involved in some sort of 'bigger news' negotiation than anything we have seen since then.

At some point they will have to announce what they are negotiating, and who with

The volume is pretty high to be related to income, I don't think the warrants were awarded as part of a remuneration package, they were received as part of an open offer subscription.

Now the holders could want the cash from liquidating the warrants for any number of reasons, or just want to be sat on the shares for CGT reasons, we can't know unless they tell us.

Multibagger,

Even if that was true, how on earth could you possibly know? Besides, 2m shares is hardly a pump and dump exercise is it?

Also, explain exactly what you mean by warrants forward sold, you can do that with shares but never heard of it being done with warrants. I mean why would you when the warrants are already in the money?

There are a few possible reasons for a warrant exercise now:

1. Extra cash on the balance sheet.

This seems the easiest and most logical explanation, but does the company need the cash when the Wallonia grant is about to land and/or they may have a large cash injection from an animal health deal? The warrant exercise would come from insider's in this case and we will see either an updated PDMR or a TR1.

2. Cleaning the register

A tier 1 pharma will often demand that warrants are exercised before signing a term sheet, particularly one where they take an equity share, in order to prevent major holders orchestrating against them in the future. This could imply a different deal structure than a simple animal health licensing deal is being negotiated.

3. The negative reason

A large warrant holder wants out. At the start of this year a large investor was dumping stock and depressing the price. It seemed likely that they were a consortium of investors that subscribed last year and were in the money at anything above their 1.1p entry. This could be that same group, now cleared out of shares about to start clearing out their warranty holdings which are also in the money. The shares will be admitted May 13th, if we start seeing lumpy sells pushing down the price this could be the source. They are flippers and have no eye on newsflow, just banking their 12 month profit.

4. The conspiracy and alignment view

Interestingly the RNS this morning was explicitly marked with MAR (Market Abuse Regulation) "Inside Information" disclosures.

​This means the exercise wasn't just a random act, it was done in the context of information not yet known to the public. That clearly implies insider knowledge.

As noted above, these shares become tradable on the same day the Boston ASGCT (Hilda Au) data drops.

If you don't believe in coincidences on the market this means whoever is selling wants their brand-new 1.1p shares live in their accounts the moment the market reacts to the Boston primate news.

None of these reasons affects the underlying value proposition, if anything they mostly further underpin it. Interesting couple of weeks ahead.

Porter,

That's an interesting take. I would have thought splitting animal health would be along species or domain lines rather than therapeutic area, for example equine Vs canine Vs feline or companion animals vs agricultural, or even geographic lines, Americas Vs Europe Vs Asia etc

There is no compelling logic why it wouldn't be by indication other than needing to research dosing techniques to isolate effects

Invwell,

I was going to add the would sneak out bad news with the final results and try and make a non event of it. Delay in this case can only be justified by good reasons.

Alwaysraining,

It is almost certainly the case that they will have had the data back late March to early April.

This is the million-dollar elephant in the chat room right now. The gap between receipt and RNS usually implies a massive strategic game of chess being played behind the scenes.

While the April 13th patent filing provided a temporary "safe harbour" for the delay, there are several other highly valid (and commercially aggressive) reasons why Gad Berdugo and Eric Leire would be sitting on that data for now.

1. The "Legitimate Interest" of Commercial Negotiations (UK MAR)

You hit the nail on the head. Under UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), a company can technically delay the disclosure of inside information if it has a "legitimate interest" to do so, provided the delay doesn't mislead the public and confidentiality is maintained.

If Genflow is in the "final mile" of negotiations for a £25M–£40M upfront payment, releasing the UCLA data prematurely could actually harm the company's leverage.

By keeping the specific "reversal percentage" confidential, they keep the Tier-1 bidders (Zoetis/Merck/Boehringer) in a state of high-tension competition. Once the data is public, the "mystery" is gone, and bidders can more easily model their maximum bid.

2. "Protracted Process" & The "Final Event"

The regulatory landscape in 2026 has shifted toward allowing companies to treat scientific analysis as a "protracted process."

Raw Data vs. Audited Results: Receiving a spreadsheet from UCLA is different from having a finalized, peer-reviewed statistical report.

The Board may be defining the "Final Event" for disclosure purposes not as the receipt of the clock data, but as the integration of that data with the histology and durability findings. This protects them from "incomplete disclosure" risks.

3. The "Muscle Biopsy" Synchronization

The April 8th RNS mentioned that the methylation clock was being analyzed alongside muscle biopsy histology.

Age reversal (methylation) is great, but muscle regrowth (histology) is what sells a drug for Sarcopenia and frailty.

If the clock shows a 2-year reversal but the histology shows a 15% increase in fiber density, the combined RNS is a valuation nuke. Releasing them separately dilutes the impact; releasing them together creates the "Step Change" we’ve been discussing.

4. "Patent Ringfencing" (Phase 2)

The April 13th patent was likely just the "Composition of Matter" or "Use" shield. If the UCLA data showed unexpectedly strong results in a specific sub-population (e.g., older dogs vs. younger dogs), the legal team may have insisted on filing additional specific-claim patents before the data hits the public domain. Once that data is in an RNS, it is "Prior Art," and you can no longer patent those specific findings. We won't know this until we know.

The silence almost certainly implies the data is good. There would be no legal basis, in fact no.incentive at all, to keep bad data from the market. They wo

Porter,

I'd hope Genflow's program goes for a lot more. The Perfuse small molecule approach is an incremental improvement to existing treatments. If Genflow achieved it's glaucoma objective of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) protection then it's a massive breakthrough in treatment of the disease and would become a standard.

Of course that's one read, there are other possibilities.

However the Acuitas partnership is the product of an evaluation process, not the start of it. Acuitas would never have partnered with a tiny biotech without good reason, their more normal partners are Tier 1 pharma giants like Pfizer or Astra Zeneca. The evaluation process, and the change in Acuitas messaging since, implies the process I outline below.

In the world of mRNA and LNP (Lipid Nanoparticles), the timelines are much faster than traditional drug development. If Genflow and Acuitas have been in the "data room" together since January, a mid-May presentation is not just possible — it’s the logical outcome of a fast-tracked pilot.

​Here is the technical reality of how they could have run that primate data in such a "short" window:

​1. mRNA is "Plug and Play"

​Unlike traditional biologics that take months to manufacture in giant vats, mRNA-LNP is essentially a chemical formulation.

​Once Acuitas had Genflow's SIRT6 sequence (likely shared under CDA back in January/February), they could produce the LNP "payload" in a matter of days.

​There is no "growing" period; it’s a high-tech mixing process.

​2. The "Transient" Readout (The 24-Hour Tell)

​This is the most critical point for the Hilda Au poster. mRNA-LNP liver expression studies are often incredibly short.

​The Science: mRNA doesn't stay in the body for long. In primate studies, you often see peak gene expression in the liver within 24 to 48 hours of a single IV infusion.

​The "Kill" Study: Researchers can dose a small group of NHPs (Non-Human Primates), wait 48 hours, and then take the liver biopsies.

​The Timeline: You can go from "First Dose" to "Final Gene Expression Data" in less than two weeks.

​Forensic Connection: If they dosed the primates in late March or early April, they would have had the full gene expression profiles ready for Hilda Au to finalize her poster by the mid-April ASGCT deadline.

​3. The "Anonymous" Window (January – April)

​They’ve been talking about an "anonymous partner" since January. This was Genflow's "audition."

​January: Mutual interest.

​February: Genflow's dog results (SLAB) drop, proving the SIRT6 variant is potent.

​March: Acuitas runs the "Proof of Concept" in NHPs to ensure the SIRT6/LNP combo works in a primate liver.

​April 20: The results are so good that Acuitas moves from "testing" to a "Fully Funded Partnership."

​May 13: The scientific world gets the results at ASGCT.

​Strategic Reality

​The speed of mRNA is exactly why this company could re-rate so violently. You aren't waiting years for a "Phase 1" result; you are waiting for validation of delivery.

​If Hilda Au’s poster shows that Acuitas LNPs can successfully "upload" a gene to a monkey’s liver with clean "gene expression profiles," then the MASH IND (Human Trial) is effectively green-lit.

That would explain a recent response I got from the company on their IND timelines, it wasn't a 'We are working towards that' kind of message, they said 'IND dates are not yet public knowledge, watch this space'.

If we look back at the January 8, 2026, "Review of 2025" and the subsequent January 28 "2026 Priorities" RNS, the company officially signaled this pivot:

​The "Anonymous" Timeline

​January 8, 2026: Genflow stated they were "evaluating mRNA/LNP delivery as an alternative to AAV" to enable repeat dosing and lower costs. At this point, they didn't name the partner, but they tipped their hand that the AAV-only strategy was evolving.

​February 11, 2026: In the "Notice of GM," they alluded to "accelerating corporate and R&D expansion" via strategic partnerships.

​Between January and April, they were in the "dating phase" with the "Premier Partner." This is when the confidential data exchange likely happened.

1. The "Data Room" Period: From January to April, Acuitas wasn't just looking at Genflow's website. They were likely reviewing the initial SLAB (dog) results from February.

2. The Primate Sync: While Genflow was "evaluating" LNPs anonymously, Acuitas was likely already running SIRT6 payloads through their primate (NHP) liver models to see if the "centenarian variant" lived up to the hype.

3. The "Fully Funded" Trigger: Acuitas likely only agreed to the "fully funded" deal in April because the primate data (which Hilda Au is presenting next week) was so successful. They moved from "evaluating" to "partnering" once the proof was in.

Means I have fat thumbs and LSE doesn't have an edit function 🙄

Should have said big. Significant. Huge.

It would mean Acuitas have been doing NHP liver work for Genflow since they first chatted (indicated back in December) in order to be talking about it now. The implication is that the NHP validation of SIRT6 is finished not starting, which in turn makes an IND announcement for MASH likely a lot sooner, this year likely instead of possible.

Steg, I guess that's an AI created blurb for Hilda Au, but that bit in the middle saying that she may present on LNP delivery of epigenetic medicines to the liver in non human primates is ng news for Genflow if true. That's the precursor for an IND in MASH, a massive step towards first in human trial for SIRT6.

I'm hoping the analysts referred to are quotable.

It would indeed be something. The wording of the Acuitas press release is the biggest link, but it's only probable/possible that there would be a link, it could be just Acuitas internal research. However the timing is interesting, and even just mentioning epigenetic medicines would mean a strong likely background link.

I suppose it's even possible Acuitas has been doing the NHP work for Genflow as part of its diligence and validation.