Member Info for RayPointer

As far as Scib1 is concerned, maybe Lindy means the Scib1 could be used:

1) in the adjuvant setting as evidenced by the first trial

2) against unresectable melanoma as evidenced by the current trial

3) in early stages as proposed in the first trial's peer review

Just a thought

From memory wasn't modi3, the aim of the grand challenge, supposed to be the universal vaccine. In which case, Lindy has not given up on the idea. Interesting, to say the least.

"SCIB1 a DC targeting DNA vaccine gives at impressive 85% response rate in combination with ipilimumab and nivolumab in advanced melanoma. Citrullination occurs in stressed tumor cells and makes an excellent target for a universal cancer vaccine. Modi-1 targeting citrullination is currently in phase II clinical trial."

I believe the first sentence is about SCIB1 and the second and third sentences are about Modi1 and citrullination.

So the universal vaccine refers to targeting citrullination in general. Citrullination is not a target for SCIB1 but it is a target for Modi1.

I doubt whether Lindy considers Modi1, as it stands, to be a universal vaccine. I think she is just looking ahead to designing a Moditope vaccine targeting the very best combination of citrullinated epitopes and thereby being effective against a wide range of cancers.

Lindy has always said that citrullination occurs on many different proteins and within each protein specific epitopes.

Modi-1 comprises just three citrullinated peptides, two derived from vimentin and one from α-enolase.

From memory, Lindy's team initially identified of the order of 30 different citrullinated epitopes that could be targeted. At the time 8 had been tested and all 8 showed a promising response.

I think the point that Lindy is making is that Modi1 could possibly just be scratching the surface of what could be eventually achieved by targeting citrullination.

So, I think miavoce is correct in stating

"Universal could equally well mean that it can be applied to all / multiple cancers as citrullination is a common feature across them."

This conference is in Scancell's Q4 so just maybe we will have long awaited trial updates either before or the day after Lindy presents.

Lindy's presentation is followed by

"11:30-12:30 expo & partnering break"

in which Lindy will no doubt secure 2 massive deals 😂

Decimal point in the right place?

IMO, it is not quite time to "show us the money".

The data from the two trials expected later this year is a far better time. Always assuming that the data is good enough to lead to deals. The SCOPE data is the more likely to lead to a deal. As for Moditope, maybe Lindy is loath to deal at this stage. Better to wait until more complete data is available for all cohorts.

I also think that a takeover bid is very unlikely with Redmile and Vulpes owning a little over 40% of the shares between them.

"So do we know if potential suitors to Scancells mAbs portfolio are looking at the infection side of things and not just cancers?"

I would guess no in this case, but who knows.

As for Melbourne Uni, I recall that they have already done work on Scancell's glycans mAbs in the past. They seem to be great fans of Scancell and Lindy.

A similar situation exists with the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. In this case Lindy gave them Modi1 to play with, but in connection to Rheumatoid Arthritis rather than cancer.

No problem WTP

Yes, mAbs are designed to bind to a target. That target could be a cancer cell or a non-cancer cell (e.g. an infected cell).

In this case, several mAbs were used in the study, including 2 provided by Lindy:

"The panel of mAbs tested included FG27 and ch88.2 provided by Professor Lindy Durrant (Scancell UK, University of Nottingham UK), 15.101 provided by Emeritus Professor Mauro Sandrin (University of Melbourne, Australia), mu58 and mu3S193 provided by Professor Andrew Scott (ONJCRI), and 7LE, 2-25LE and LWY/1463 (Table 2) purchased from Abcam (Cambridge, UK)."

Here's the link

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59234-w#Sec20

Not the first time that Lindy has collaborated with Melbourne University.

The weather must be gloomy in Transylvania 😒

For a modi1 update, I think this news item is the latest indication of when we will be updated.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SCLP/results-for-the-year-ended-30-april-2023-an9qb34t5po41pn.html

"Modi-1 (ModiFY trial)

· Modi-1 has completed dose escalation and safety cohorts of the Phase 1/2 ModiFY trial and is now into expansion cohorts

· Early data from patients receiving Modi-1 as a monotherapy showed good safety and tolerability, with no dose limiting toxicities observed in dose escalation cohorts

· Modi-1 demonstrated encouraging early efficacy in a head and neck cancer patient and in other hard- to-treat cancers such as high grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)

· Early clinical data with Modi-1 expected to be available in 2024"

It's deliberately vague since Scancell do not know how fast Modi1 recruitment will be in the expansion cohorts. Not a promise, in other words.

Chester

I think we just resign ourselves to having data in Q3 for SCIB1 and Q4 for iSCIB1+ with the possibility of further slippage.

I personally don't have a problem with this and will consider topping up on SP weakness.

Remember the statisticians say 90% chance of achieving the 70% response rate. I would guess that Lindy consulted mathematician ex-colleagues at Nottingham UNI to arrive at this figure.

LSE get a feed of trades from the market and, surprisingly, this feed does not contain whether each trade is a buy or a sell.

So, there is logic on the LSE web site that uses the mid price between bid and ask to determine whether the trade is a buy or a sell. Inevitably, for trades close to the mid price, there will be errors.

"What do you all think?"

There's nowt so queer as folk

Excellent logic Konar.

I do hope you are correct.

It is particularly logical that the clinical team would not allow the iscib1+ cohort to start recruiting until after the completion of the scib1 cohort.

If both cohorts were open at the same time, and a prospective patient qualifies for both cohorts, then a little research by that patient would maybe uncover Lindy's statement "If you like scib1, you're going to love iscib1+".

It's probably better not to provide this sort of difficult choice to prospective patients, especially after the initial success of scib1, and also the fact that iscib1+ is, as yet, unproven. Anyway, we may find out on Monday morning.

Moderna's approach is radically different to Lindy's approach.

In fact, she has said in the past that she thinks that the personalised approach is too expensive and also takes time to produce the personalised vaccine. It also sounds from this article that the FDA are still not decided on how to handle the approval of such vaccines.

"All of this raises a new regulatory question: How much change to the AI algorithm is allowed before the vaccine should be considered a completely new product?"

Certainly, if SCIB1 continues to produce great results, it will look to be very tempting to big pharma.

Low cost

Off the shelf

Easy to manufacture

Once approved, that's it

The delivery of the vaccine seems very much to be sorted with the pharmajet device

Excellent post Bermuda.

Point 3 could well be relevant, in time, to Glymabs and Avidimab in particular:

"3) They have at least 2 or 3 ADCs in clincal trials. So fully defined products that have successfully been taken all the way through preclinical development, manufacture, trial design, regulatory approval etc. etc. and are now in the clinic. Scancell's mAbs are at a much eariler stage."

Now if an ADC were attached to a GlyMab as Lindy has already indicated ............

Double trouble for the cancer cells?

PM, I recall you stated that you would give it until the end of March before deciding to give up on any chance that 201 would be progressed.

To be fair to you, I don't recall you stating March of which year, so perhaps you meant March of 2025.

Generally, for a small biotech, I think having a lab to do their own discovery and pre-clinical work is a good idea.

It saves time and money.

However, Val never seem to publish their work, making it available to a much wider scientific audience.

They never attend conferences and present their work. That in itself seems suspicious to me.

It makes you think that they have nothing of any worth to publish or present. Alternatively, they haven't got what it takes to develop , present and publish to gain the attention of big pharma.

It also explains why only the likes of THX and Ambrose show any interest in Val's products.