Member Info for travel_light

How are the identified antibodies made. Is that a difficult/expensive process. Do animals get injected with virus (weakened), or is protein isolated and injected? How is the antibody obtained from there.

How are the administered ? Would affimers be administered the same way. Any pointers appreciated.

I presume that affimers using recombinant process are easier to manufacture, as well as any therapeutic advantages (smaller etc).

I’ll do some of my own research but pointers appreciated.

Copied into context, thank SC3

PD1 stands for programmed death. All cells are programmed to die at a certain point but many tumour cells are able to block this and so continue to proliferate. There are a number of PD1 inhibitors available (for melanoma for instance) however they tend to stimulate immune reactions elsewhere in the body so the side-effects can be severe or even fatal. Presumably an affimer-based molecule could be more specific with fewer side-effects.

Risk

Price is determined by regulation and is low. Windfall tax?

I think these are low but given the bun fight between nhs and treasury ....

Plus Donald would love to show how he can strong arm a company for the common good, especially if it follows America first.

Hi

Avacta quite a technical product.

Did some reading around about avacta current product pipeline and thought to look at how affimers can be used in cancer treatment. would appreciate correction where appropriate.

There is a molecule PD-L1 associated with some tumour cells. It seems to be involved in how cells can be “killed” by the bodies defense system (t-cells). Pd-L1 inhibits the killing of a tumour cell. It does this by binding to a molecule on t-cells called PD-1.

Quote

It appears that upregulation of PD-L1 may allow cancers to evade the host immune system. An analysis of 196 tumor specimens from patients with renal cell carcinoma found that high tumor expression of PD-L1 was associated with increased tumor aggressiveness and a 4.5-fold increased risk of death

More at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PD-L1

Avacta is working with partner to block pd-l1 interaction with PD-1

Quote
AVA004 is a novel Affimer-based agent that selectively binds to and inhibits the interaction of PD-L1 on tumour cells with PD-1 on immune cells and so prevents this signalling pathway inactivating T-cells in the tumour microenvironment.

More at https://avacta.com/therapeutics/pipeline/

My understanding is that the variable nature of affimers mean they look like other molecules and can therefore bind/interact with molecular pathways. By binding to pd-l1 on cancer cell the it means that pd-l1 cannot switch of a t-cell (in theory).

Hi Vegas

That night out might need to wait till elimination of virus through test and trace or vaccine. You could always eat at the theatre and sit in the bar after the concert.

A business where 1 person reports in sick will want to stay open and will be happy to pay for testing over a short duration. The alternative is to close.

Will they test everyday as soon as test available, I doubt many companies would, but if trouble arrives then yes eg meat packing plants. If hotspot I would think govenent mass testing would be primary.

All guessing whilst we wait, entertaining but we shall see soon enough :-)

I would hope Director bonus, fancy cars and dividends would come after ensuring employees are tested and safe.

I’m not for gouging the market but companies stating they can’t afford testing for staff need to be squeaky clean.

what I am thinking (and that is always dangerous), is the the variable sequences are tested against different targets. Avacta discover certain amino acid sequences in the variable arm, have attraction to certain substances. The discovery of which sequence is attracted to which substance should be able to protect. But this is pharmacology/bio-sciences, and it's a new world for me, hence why I am wondering. Like the affirmer attracted to the spike protein of Covid, can that amino acid sequence be patented ? Prior knowledge would be affirmer technology generally, and most if not all patents recognise prior knowledge.

good article, done the whole hang on denial bit (Omnibio what a pile of ****), live an learn.

Is Surowiecki the dude who bought at 2.00 and sold a 1.00?

thanks Gmcc.

tried to read some.

I have some patents but in SW. We can get new patents by building on existing patents, and I was wondering if each of the 50 candidates mentioned could be patented for a given usage where the original patent was for a technology. In that way even when original patent runs out, Avacta would have control for an extended time over the usage of many.

It looks like (and I have to admit it is hard going to read so might be wrong), but there are specific affirmers patented for a specific use. So as avacta find more usages they can keep on building a moat. One downside is others could find affirmers and patent them for usage. I think research can use others technology, just not sell it. They cant use them, but could patent them, but they would need competence, not easy etc.

Was more wondering if avacta find a affimer which detect TB for example in 2019. It’s a very specific sequence of amino acids (on the stick arm). Can they patent that sequence for TB detection.

Most of the ones I seen are for affimer tech generally.

Slight disappointment that 2019 date seems to have slipped although I am new to Avacta, might have missed something.

Avacta have patent/s on affimer technology. That will eventually run out. Can they protect each affimer found against a valuable target with a new patent ?

Thank you RD. Sounds positive, would like to see “could be”made into “will be”.

Covid has probably lowered effort on these (just my unsubstantiated guess), but nice to think that some of the money raised might be going to bring more than one product to market to generate long term revenue. Also that relationships being made.

did CEO say 5 diagnostics tests to start discussing licensing terms. If so, have target conditions/illness be declared, wondering how big opportunity that would be ?

Ignore me. One glass too many

Is that thread there? I couldn’t find it. Maybe they due after 24 hours?

I mean in this thread rather than BB.

As for if avacta can’t no one can, there is always someone somewhere making a better mouse trap. I think the main challenge thou is with Cytiva and if they can’t get affimers working in a LFD I suspect no one in short term could.

Thanks PL .

Starts ca 18min in with Klaus

I don’t think there is doubt, just interest what is happening :-)

Pl I have Se/en spell checkers On phone. They fight to control my posts! Cake=scale

Trip hop, interesting info, tack (thanks)

Thanks PL for graph

The numbers of deaths were impacted by care home numbers, and are horrifying.

Workers going from home to home (fill in for sick staff, holidays etc), then going home to children still in school. Infections took hold, people sent back from hospital, lack off PPE.

Authorities have held hand up and said it was a ****up. but that is small consolation to those that lost relatives early.

On the maturity thing most people are being sensible but the is a definite decline in awareness. At the start no friends round, one in a lift at a time etc. now people seem to be ignoring the danger, grown numb to it. But pubs outside Stockholm have large spacing between tables but in the city lunch is the same as always.

A poc test is going to help. The antibody one I think will give better insight into actual infection rates, although large cakes testing has been done to find hidden rates of infection, I don’t know the figures.