Ann: Shareholder Newsletter, page-45

• PYC has said they’ve selected a number of therapeutic cargoes and assessed their activity when linked to PYC CPPs. Put another way, they’ve trialed ds’s giant tractor by loading it up with different cargoes and then compared the results with the other tractors on the market.

• PYC has said that the results were “highly encouraging” – “our delivery solution offers potencies that consistently surpass those achieved using the previous gold-standard cell penetrating technology”. Put another way, our tractor won the contest hands down.

• TAT is the “gold standard” CPP that PYC’s CPP outperformed in the comparison- 37 fold better delivery, to be precise.

• Another was R9 – see Slide 13 of the recent Biotech Showcase presentation and the November 14 newsletter. PYC’s CPP was said to be 159 fold better at delivering protein cargo into cells than R9.

• The recently discussed study of poly-arginine and arginine-rich peptides as neuroprotectors in stroke models showed that one of the peptides (R9) secured highly promising results when administered intravenously up to one hour after stroke onset in a rat model.

• My questions are - is this the same R9 that PYC's phylomer outperformed in protein cargo delivery into cells? And if it is, will R9 have been selected as one of the therapeutic cargoes for testing? Has PYC already assessed the neuroprotective activity of R9 when linked to its proprietary CPP? And if so, what was the result?