Member Info for technick

Hi Marve, I agree, GDR has a test that is in commercial production and a proven POC platform, AVCT have never released a commercial diagnostic and there are no affirmer diagnostic products in commercial production. All affirmer research publications show sensitivity issues. I'm not sure that COVID-19 changes any of those issues. Plus they are selling their reagent for others to sort out the sensitivity issues. I'm not convinced.

GDR on the other hand has a POC platform used and validated in other areas....

please does anyone know if we are we expecting the broker placing completion rns today at 4:30 or tomorrow morning? This should tell us how oversubscribed it was

I actually can’t stress the potential benefit here too strongly, it significantly increases a labs throughput and dramatically lowers the cost base. Really key differentiator over every other test supplier.

there was an interesting detail on the crowdcity linked pdf, because of the way the test is designed to provide results as an 'end point melt curve' it means that the actual PCR can be done on standard PCR machines, with the final melt analysis done of the qPCR instrument. Why is this important? Because there are 100:1 standard PCR instruments compared to qPCR so you can significantly increase your throughput using standard PCR machines to run the test and 7 of these feeding a single qPCR to read the results. You effectively increase your throughput by 7x. That could become a significant advantage because standard PCR machines are also 10% the price as well as being ubiquitous.... some of these differentiators may become really important for many screening services.

News predictions for this week...

oversubscribed placing
CE-IVD / FDA emergency use submission
6m production run
Commercial partners for 6m tests

@fairview it think they have 35m in issue and are issuing a further 10m so about 22% dilution

@bb, would be nice to know what tests are being ambiguous

Agree BB

Not sure it’s 30%, I make it a lot less

@pete yes, aptamers have promised to be the alternative to antibody and antigen tests but they all suffer with being insensitive when used to detect infectious diseases. I fear affimers have the same low sensitivity from the research papers that are published

@marve, the issue with Aptamer based tests has always been sensitivity. Without an amplification / copying stage that PCR gives you are expecting a lot on the ability of the ‘developer’ chemistry to provide a signal that you can then use detect The target. There are extensive publications out there with this conclusion. There are also no few if any commercially available aptamer based tests on the market today, compare that to the many PCR tests that are commercially available. I didn’t know much about affimers until recently but from what I have read I don’t see how they resolve the sensitivity issues and again I see no commercially available affimer based tests. What references I’ve read have said sensitivity is 60-80% so below PCR and that tells me a lot... specificity is good from what I read but my opinion is if they were sensitive enough we’d be seeing commercial tests available for sale for other targets but we don’t and if they were not sensitive before then why now.... of course there maybe something that isn’t public that I don’t see...

It is being reported that some tests currently in the market are giving inconclusive results, more than likely due to inconsistencies in manufacture, reconstitution issues (the NYCT tests needs to be made up by the lab before use), or mutations. The genedrive test solves all of these and should make for a better more consistent test that is more resilient to mutations. All of these factors make the test more or less sensitive. Looking forward to the week and weeks ahead.

Hi Marve, with the NYCT and the GDR tests they’ve been designed to run on existing platforms (ignoring the internal platforms). This is important because many labs run those platforms from Roche and LifeTech, they’re standards in the molecular industry for labs. So in that regard the throughputs are similar. However, they differ in chemistry used for detection and the ready to use nature of the GDR test..

Genedrive will be shipping their tests around the world, not solely the U.K.

@olderandwiser yes it’s conservatism around the validation process for the POC test I think. With 5e plate format it’s straightforward because you’re testing the reagents against known samples and basically each plate can test 96 samples in parallel within the high throughput lab which is already geared up and processing large sample numbers so you’re comparing apples with apples.. You’re only testing the reagent test.

With POC you’re having to test the whole process from sample to result and then comparing that against the same sample processed through high throughput lab processing. It’s just more involved so the study takes longer.

The smart thing to do is to get the 96 well setup as a validated and gold standard test, then run your study for the genedrive poc comparing Against your own test reagents as they’re the same. It makes the process easier but takes a little longer as the 96 well test establishes itself.

I think that’s where the conservative time comes from, purely on the trials uncertainty for the comparative studies. Again I think the company are being very ethical and very meticulous.

Hi Olderandwiser, it’s the same test packaged differently so availability should be quick. Clinical trials will be the issue but considering the pressing need I think they’ll be allowances made. December seems a long way off and I wonder if that’s being overly cautious around trials requirements.

@francobrett I am a long term holder over many years. I’ve listened to opinion and averaged down against opinion. On Thursday I thought I’d sell £25k of my holding based on sentiment saying this was heading to nearer the placing price. I sold at £1.50 and could not buy again. I’m ‘happy’ as it’s all profit and I suspect we are in for a climb back up to above £3 again. I followed sentiment and failed. I’ll stick to my understanding of the opportunity based on research and not others opinions...

@francorbrett I agree with you, £8m now to deliver shareholder value, I care not if the people who parted with £8m of their own money make a profit, and they will. Let’s hope next week this issue is put to bed and the company attracts new long term holders.

In business things change, there is no doubt what was written would have been what was intended. But things may have happened that meant they needed to change direction. The changing landscape of the pandemic, all manner of things. In my experience the management of plc companies tread a difficult path and rarely have a seen manipulation. Often though I have seen a change in circumstances. I do agree this board should not get personal if people disagree with an opinion and people are always reminded that apart from facts that are in the public domain, everything else is opinion. We are all entitled to our own.

They have 3 CE-IVD tests already and a WHO pre-qualifiers one. Since CE-IVD is a self certification process around documenting the test design there is little risk that they won’t do it other than the sun not rising the day before. CE-IVD is not the risk here, it was manufacturability which is already done... the next risk would be around market, but I don’t see that changing any time soon. Then it’s simply around whether or not you think the size of the market is reflected in the share price. That’s a valid discussion.