Ann: Feasibility Agreement, page-16

Thanks -Biotech-. Highly interesting, both the full article and the supplementary material (just confirming detail of the device / cartridge / optical sensor haven't changed much).

They complain about the optimum coverage density of antibodies being a trade-off between:
* too low density, each antibody attaches to the nano-particle in multiple places & becomes non-functional
* too high density, the antibody more often attaches right, but then a smaller proportion of the antibodies are available to usefully attach to their target.

It feels like they are pretty much saying that something like Mix&Go will allow them to use the lower density for optimum capture (rather than squeezing in extra anti-body to prevent the multiple-attachment problem), as orientation and multiple attachment should be less a problem. In fact, almost every paragraph describing the challenges seemed to be countered by a slide from one of GC's presentations.

I wonder what the antibody cost price is in the cartridges with their current best concentrations. What level of direct cost advantage by reducing antibody use -- in addition to any improvements in sensitivity or test time.

Great to see a team like that on Philips side carefully measuring performance. Anteo's tech will always get a good evaluation.