Here's my comment, fwiw, Cornhulio. What went through my mind...

Here's my comment, fwiw, Cornhulio.

What went through my mind when I first read Imugene's ann is that the function (not so much its mode or mechanism of action) of NeoImmune Tech, yes, is similar to CellPryme. However, IMU's Azer-cell platform being based on allogeneic or donor-derived cells has the benefit of working with potentially younger cells from healthy donors. Those cells will naturally have a more "youthful" phenotype.

The expert opinions are that both auto and allo (patient and donor) systems of collecting cells will exist side by side in immunotherapy and well into the future. There is a need for using a patient's own cells in a lot of instances. This is where CellPryme is positioned. Nearly all trials in the clinic are based on the autologous method, and cancers that affect older people that are refractory, are better served by the autologous method. The immune system is far less likely to react detrimentally to foreign cells from a donor than cells from the patient that have been tweaked to achieve a more "youthful" phenotype.

The one unkown is who approached who for this collab to take place? Does it cast doubt over CellPryme? I don't think so, at all. Azer-cel is based on allo or donor-derived cells. Based on my understanding, blood from younger donors would naturally have immune cells of more central-memory phenotype. Its simple as that, IMO. Allo may never suit some cancer patients or suit cancer-types that predominantly affect older populations... and that is where CellPryme comes into its own. PTX is about finding those niches and pursuing those.