Member Info for technick

I agree Olderandwiser and truth is these are big markets with lots of different use cases where different technologies will be better placed in certain circumstances. I’ve been a shareholder a long time, my background is diagnostics. I know the Technology markets and the technology base. It will become clear where these different approaches end up on that sensitivity spectrum. With this accelerated rate of progress which is exciting to see at least we won’t have to wait long!

I’ve just seen your AVCT post, I appreciate your balanced position. I always like to see data and I simply don’t see any clinical data for any affimer, ie real world clinical samples run in other people’s labs with no hand holding. GDR has been through this and know the difference between internal and external testing and the difference in sensitivity when you move into real world testing.

I was literally just posting an apology olderamdwiser, sorry

Hi old timer, my worry with AVCT is sensitivity is low before sampling issues which will make it even less sensitive. PCR exponentially copies the target leading to signal amplification. Affimer and antigen tests don’t amplify the target, they rely on direct target detection, difficult if your target is low abundance. My issue is I think the diagnostics application is simply an add on for the business and hasn’t been core, hence to commercial affimer lateral flow tests you can buy today??

Hi Bernard, I agree. Any direct detection without some form of amplification will not yield high enough sensitivity. In the 30+ years PCR has been around nobody has bettered its sensitivity. There are no commercially available affimer tests with CE-IVD that I can see which speaks volumes.

These business need to deliver. As mentioned earlier I see mologic backtracking on their poc offer making it lab based testing.

GDR is in a solid position IMO. Strong technology and tests already through IVD and in market. I am biased having held for many years.

Publications also suggesting saliva giving the same sensitivity as nasopharyngeal swabs which should make tests easier to perform and home sampling.

On distribution announcement world wide, £2-£3 based on potential sales multiple

Convinced cytiva will be global distribution partner.

I can’t imagine under what basis that could be true...

This link says 30-45 minutes so no quicker than Genedrive in reality

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rapid-test-for-covid-19-point-of-care/

If they can develop tests in under a week and if it is better than the established technology the l why haven’t they? Because it’s their opinion based on no experience otherwise they wouldn’t talk such rubbish. A test can be ‘designed’ in a week given scrutiny and careful process, but then it needs testing in the lab and then testing with samples before testing in clinical setting. Research groups have not the faintest ideas about the bits they’ve not yet done. Genedrive is a solid platform based on established gold standard technology and look at the time taken to get their tests through. I’m sure their design was quick but it’s robustness testing that takes the time.

No I don’t think so, qPCR will always be the gold standard

Thanks TK, I agree with you and also asked for information, most investors don’t really understand the technology they’re investing in. Bottom line is GDR is based on gold standard chemistry. I notice on the Genedrive website they say the test is already validated for nasopharyngeal swabs, that means it gives the expected sensitivity and specificity required with those sample types - really encouraging!

My concern with AVCT is that although they have previously ‘worked up’ their chemistry to create affimers toward Zika, there are no clinical papers demonstrating sensitivity and specificity. The only information I can find is in a 2017 PhD thesis, the link is below. So it looks like until now this element of the business has been research. Even within the document below there are no clinical sensitivity results so it is difficult to see where their product will end up on the utility spectrum. Specificity looks good but the reason why antigen tests don’t work for most infectious diseases is that they simply are not sensitive enough. With PCR you are exponentially making millions of copies of the target you’re looking for so it’s much more sensitive in comparison. It’s why it’s the gold standard. There seem to be lots of companies like AVCT out there who didn’t have proven track record products 5-8 weeks ago but who think the pandemic changes that. Again my suspicion is good intent has given some optimistic claims. Even Mologic who received £1m to develop a POC solution is now suggesting a lab based test first, mmmm smoke and mirrors I think. Let’s see, my money is on GDR to deliver the goods!

If anyone can point to clinical verification of the AVCT technology on Zika then I’ll be the first to say I’m wrong. I simply can’t find this important proof that their affimers are sensitive with real clinical samples.

http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/19759/1/Zoe%20Jackson%20SMCB%202017.pdf

Marve I agree from some reason we are not being valued the same. Our potential for revenue far exceeds novacyt for example because of our platform. I think once we announce availability we will really fly

you're welcome :D

Longrun, there are different companies making tests, the GDR test has several technical benefits, 1. It’s pre dispensed so speeds things up, 2. It is temperature stable for a long time not just for shipping allowing stocking 3. It’s more amenable to mutations (lots of reports of this virus now mutating with 30 different strains world wide which would limit performance of some tests) and the 4. It’s compatible with the systems from Roche and ABI being used in the labs and then 5. The big differentiator is Genedrive has a validated point of care platform currently used in the NHS and by the US DOD who just ordered another 500 systems and assays. We are best placed of all the companies.

AVCT don’t have a system or tests that have been used outside of their own research.

Omega are just starting to develop antigen and antibody tests both of which have issues over sensitivity with other SARS coronaviruses.

So again GDR are using gold standard qPCR for both high throughout labs and also POC, all proven and established so in my view a good position.

I think that’s highly likely, nobody could have imagined the covid issues when the shares were bought unless they had major insight! The scale of the rise in sp under your scenario may have been worrying

agreed, I think once we launch the 96 SARS-CoV-2 test then the market cap is arguably in the 10x range from today

that would give a share price of £7.28 on the same MC basis

Some perspective on valuation, Novacyt's market cap today is £255m, with sales of £12m last year and PrimerDesign (the molecular part ofd the business) turning over £5.5m. What we know is the Genedrive DOD contract for 500 new instruments and associated assays will not be far off that revenue figure. Add the hearing loss test revenues and HCV it is arguable that our market cap should exceed Novacyt's.... anyone disagree and why?