GVHD the first step, page-79

I've got the public MSB announcements (suggesting potency assays that we're updates on what was used in GVHD001 (ie TNFR1 and/or IL2R alpjha would be the only qualifiers for that - not INFgamma - had MSB introduced an INFgamma potency assay I think they'd have said so - but doing that would carry the problem of suggesting product lots that were produced when it wasn't used - (because its also an inhibitor of T cell proliferation might have more than one possible plausible cause of potency - a potential problem for them) like pretty much all of them (past trials on remestemcel-L) including the clinical trial data could be confounded) and the Blinker and Bauer paper was Feb 2021. Not quite two years on that yet.

Reverted too was Dr Rose's comment - more recently that two year. Optimised was the language used in MSB announcements - both those are consistent with altering TNFR1 measuring (like with another antibody) not adding another potency assay.

Do you really think they'd introduce new potency assays that weren't used in the GVHD001 trial and not explicitly say that they had?

I don't think there is much trade secret-able about measuring INF-gamma levels. Could be wrong. Klinker and Bauer measured it with an antibody and FACS or ELISA (on four separate commerically available MSB lines - 2 of which were from LONZA from memory) I forget which.

And they found INF-gamma had a bigger impact on priming the cells than did TNF-alpha (which they didn't find on its own to be significant) but they did find when used in combination with INF-gamma gave a bigger effect. They did note that others had found TNF-alpha was significant on its own in other research - they just didn't get statistical significance.