Member Info for RayPointer

Interesting that at the time of publishing the Covidity pre-clinical results, Lindy et al had the following to say about the approved vaccines:

"The efficacy of vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2 is becoming apparent now that the mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines that have been approved for emergency use are showing promise. However, the longevity of the protective immune response and its efficacy against emerging variants remains to be determined."

But, it's interesting that about 9 months after this was stated, Lindy teamed up with her mate Jia Xin Chua (of glycans mAbs fame) to come up with the following conclusion:

"Interpretations: The current vaccines do not induce as strong neutralising antibodies with broad variant protection as infection and suggest vaccines that induce broader sterilising immunity are essential to prevent new variants emerging."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4062765

It is no co-incidence that Lindy and her ex-colleague have come to much the same conclusion as Kate Bingham.

It is worth having a closer look at the pre-clinical results of Covidity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352540817_A_novel_bivalent_DNA_vaccine_encoding_both_spike_protein_receptor-binding_domain_and_nucleocapsid_protein_of_SARS-CoV-2_to_elicit_T_cell_and_neutralising_antibody_responses_that_cross_react_with_varia

The rationale for targeting the N protein:

"The N protein plays a vital role in viral RNA replication and the formation of new virions and is therefore highly conserved between coronaviruses [4, 21]. It is present in large quantities and can stimulate a strong immune response. Critically, most survivors of SARS-CoV-2 show evidence of T cell and antibody immunity against the N protein [22], suggesting that it is a target of the natural immune response. Our vaccine design includes the N protein in order to provide broader immunity during the ongoing viral pandemic, a strategy also being considered by other next generation vaccine developers [23]. "

T Cell responses:

"High frequency CD8 and Th1 CD4 T cell responses to both RBD and N proteins were stimulated."

Antibody binding:

"Antibody binding to S1 antigen was detected using a three-step approach consisting of anti-mouse Fc biotin (Sigma Aldrich B7401) followed by streptavidin-HRPO (Life Technologies SA1007) and finally TMB (3,3´, 5, 5´- tetramethylbenzidine) Core+ reagent (Bio-Rad BUF062C) for development. Antibody binding to N protein was detected using conventional two-step ELISA with an HRPO-conjugated anti-mouse Fc antibody (Sigma Aldrich A9309)."

The role of Avidimab:

"A high frequency of T cells specific to the N protein was detected in mice immunised with DNA constructs containing the N protein linked to modified Fc (iV1) when compared to constructs containing N protein (p=0.0278) or the N protein linked to unmodified Fc (Figure 2Ai). "

I would assume that once Scancell have finished their pre-clinical work for the first Glycans mAb, then they may be looking to deal. I would also assume that the mAbs that attracted the deals that were turned down by Scancell would be receiving priority in Scancell's pre-clinical work.

I was confused just like Johnny in reading that article.
It was almost that the journalist had to write something at a time of year when a lot of people are absent on holiday.

"Late last year, the company was reportedly considering a potential listing of its vaccines and immune therapies division, Bloomberg reported in December, citing people close to the discussions. At the same time, however, AstraZeneca shared a statement with Fierce Pharma that it had “no plans” to list the unit."

INS or RNS is immaterial, the important thing is that Lindy can now spend more time liking the Covidity advert :-)

LOL and then again she might not

I can't see Inan being wrong on something like this.

They haven't starting testing on mice yet!
There is no guarantee that it will ever reach the clinic.

"Great research JohnnyB1??It is interesting that the number of “likes” on the covidity advert is now 134 - huge increase over past couple of days and you must ask yourself…why? You could just be right and a RNS is not far away??"

Sorry Jamboian, a great example of wishful thinking methinks, but it would be great if it were true. :-)

Bermuda, that's a great explanation about the constraints on releasing clinical data too soon.
One thing is certain though, and that is, there are a number of possible value inflection points on the way. We shouldn't expect them next Tuesday :-)
I would highly recommend reading the Trinity Delta report. TD think a fair value now is 29 pence based on a great deal of conservatism in their calculations.
As to the timing of the possible value inflection points, it looks likely that these will occur during 2023. However, we may get RNSs on immunogenicity this year on any of the 3 trials.
"Patience is a virtue" is the Scancell PI motto :-)

1 The Modi1 peptides and AMPLIVANT are joined by chemical bonds
2 AMPLIVANT is owned by ISA
3 AMPLIVANT is not a drug but an adjuvant and is designed to make vaccines work better. Lindy experimented with more than 1 adjuvant but discovered that AMPLIVANT worked best.

OK that'll teach me to read the posts first :-)

This shows 3-6 patients have been dosed with the low dose and presumably all OK :-)

https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/docspres/scancell-2021-agm_all_final_corrected.pdf

Konar, this is from the last AGM.
Slide 27 shows the Modi1 trial design

It shows:

1 It is difficult to create a long lasting vaccine against a mutating virus
2 Moderna and Pfizer consider it is more profitable to create a new short lived booster each year

Hi Johnny
Lindy may well may know more about T Cells than many of the scientists employed by big pharma.
It's not just the fact that that Immunobody activates T cells. The dual presentation of the vaccine to the dendritic cells is what gives it its power.
1 The activated T Cells have higher than normal avidity
2 Clonal expansion is stronger
3 The is strong evidence from the SCIB1 clinical trial and also mice experiments with SCIB2 that a strong memory response is created.

Ultimately, it this this strong memory response that may give Covidity a long lasting effect.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

From the abstract

"Thus, infection with betacoronaviruses induces multi-specific and long-lasting T cell immunity against the structural N protein. Understanding how pre-existing N- and ORF1-specific T cells that are present in the general population affect the susceptibility to and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is important for the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic."

This article was dated June 2020.

Lindy's decision to target the N protein predates this article by almost 2 months.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SCLP/scancell-development-of-vaccine-against-covid-19-n4dr22ko1qptgp6.html

"Scancell's DNA vaccine will target the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein and the key receptor-binding domain of the spike (S) protein to generate both T cell responses and VNAbs against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The N protein is highly conserved amongst coronaviruses; therefore, this new vaccine has the potential to generate protection not only against SARS-CoV-2, but also against new strains of coronavirus that may arise in the future."

I agree with Bermuda.
Biontech have been trumpeting the cause concerning mRNA vaccines for ages now. They are hardly likely to switch to DNA.
mRNA being, based on production of whole proteins, is maybe simply not flexible enough to provide a universal Covid19 vaccine.

The Scancell approach of targeting specific epitopes, some of which are likely to be conserved across future mutations is possibly a better approach.
If you couple this with the Immunobody approach that gives the T Cells of high avidity, which is maybe even further enhanced by Avidimab then you have a very promising approach. Remember also that the approach has already been shown to be successful against Melanoma.
It might be that T Cell avidity is the key.

To sum up c7's post, there is no point in looking backwards when Scancell now have the money to progress their dreams based on a more solid basis.

Hi Ivy
I agree that the BOD must accept some of the responsibility.
But what would most CEOs of a cash strapped company do in the situation Scancell were faced with. I am suggesting that the BOD would have acted much quicker to relocate the trial to the UK if they had the Redmile cash at the time.

Anyway, here's a bit of light relief for the weekend about big pharma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysEBysOEyTs

Hi C7

Lindy did intimate that it is so much more difficult for small bios to get trials going and then financing them properly.
The financing part of running trials is now partly solved by Scancell and we have three trials on-going.

Scancell also have that second lab at Oxford aimed at the development phase and then analysis of the trial results. This also should speed things up and perhaps lead to higher qualify work being performed.
We have seen two recent examples of trials being re-shaped by Scancell after trial commencement. This is another indicator that the extra money also brings added flexibility. This may be partly driven by the early results being analysed in the lab.

This is all my opinion, but I believe that Scancell, pre the Redmile cash injection, was a company that wanted to do lots of things but was simply prevented by lack of cash. Now, things are different, and the cash runway allows a chance to compile more data in a shorter period. I know it may not feel that way for many LTHs, for instance, having to wait over a year for Covidity results, but those results are definitely getting nearer.
We have seen 1 set of results (SCIB1) in Scancell's existence and now we await 3 more sets of results in the next 18 months or so. To me that is a huge difference.