Dear liqcrisisYou are quite right that there are a lot of HPV...

Dear liqcrisis

You are quite right that there are a lot of HPV tests around.

You are quite right that they all work pretty much as well as each other.

But the key questions around PapType seem to me to be a) is it a material benefit to work on standard flow cytometer and not to require the purchase of new pieces of kit? b) does PapType (or the next generation PapType Rapid) have genuine ease of use benefits for a Path lab (particularly a smaller lab that is not in a position to run the automated HC2 test) that are sufficiently material to get the customer base excited?, and c) are there major diagnostics businesses that have a strong strategic driver to be involved in HPV diagnostics but that do not currently have an assay? and d) if the answer to "c" is yes, is PapType sufficiently attractive to be snapped up in either a licencing deal or corporate acquisition by one of these players? There is also a question as to whether a test that simultaneously detects & genotypes is going to be regarded as providing additional useful clinical data relative to HC2 and Third Wave.

The answer to c) would appear to be "Yes". The large number of bidders for Third Wave is supportive of this view. The answers to a) and b) are hard to assess from a distance, and drive the answer to (d).

liqcrisis - your knowledge of the sector is very very good. Your knowledge of Qiagen is so good that I wonder if you have a relationship with them?

I suspect that your knowledge of GBI is good but not great. I am no scientist but months ago I tried to have a conversation with Allen Bollands about the concept of the "single bead" test that you have mentioned a number of times now as being a sensible product for Genera to develop. It is possible that I did not do justice to your concept, but Allen seemed convinced that the idea had no merit as the single bead test would not be any more straightforward than the current genotyping test. Why develop a test that has the same level of complexity but provides less clinical data?

Anyway - I think that GBI has been pretty open in stating that it needs to be "partnered up" in some shape or form in order to succeed. Time will tell as to whether a partner is signed up, and on what terms. Company releases indicate that they are pretty confident of getting this milestone achieved in 2009, but we shall all see in due course.

Cheers

Red