BioExec criticises phylomers on two grounds:- there are many...

BioExec criticises phylomers on two grounds:
- there are many initiatives to use the TR or LRP receptor to transport cargos across the BBB; and
- potential immunogenicity of phylomers

On the first point, this is red herring. Phylomers are foundation technology - they can apply to any and all extra- and intra- cellular disease physiology - maybe worse, maybe better than other approaches - you need to do the research to find out. The point is there are hundreds of billions of them to try ...

The other advantage of phylomers is the screening technology is readily at hand. BioExec has criticised the phage display and yeast-two-hybrid screening technique as low tech. I prefer to think of it as cheap, simple and straight forward.

On the second point, phylomers are small (15-20mer); this actually reduces immunogenic epitopes or cryptic motifs that could stimulate an immune response! The reality is that some phylomers will be immunogenic - much less than most foundation classes of drug.

Everyone else, with very few exceptions, has immunogenicity problems. There are approaches to deal with this if you find an active phylomer (which are sometimes active at staggeringly low dosage) but it triggers some immune response. The key thing is to first find the activity.