"Current CAR T therapies are mostly academic products they are not designed to be commercially manufactured to treat larger population hopefully in due time prescient can shed some more light on TF collaboration and be positioned to service this need."
That statement begs the question whether the data presented by Bec in the TF webinar by Bioinsights would have been any better in terms of the expression % of OmniCAR and tumour killing % when armed using the non-viral process of cell manufacturing... ? The particular method of delivery, namely, electroporation showed good results despite the accepted/inherent issues. Across a lot of parameters, the results seemed bettter than expected. OmniCAR certainly performed well using Lentivirus. However, using non-viral transfection, it didn't seem to translate in the final and most important metrics nearly as well. Is that because NV transfection is best suited to clinical and commercial scale as opposed to that of lab scale?
There were two points indicating that perhaps the data will improve in the transition from lab benchtop scale to clinical and commercial scale. I think it may have something to do with payload capacity. It will be interesting when the TF collab work is offically finalised as to how the definitive data looks. Will NVV compromise the multi-arming potential of OmniCAR enough to make sequential arming the only viable approach. All other attritubes should remain viable: the ability to switch off and switch on the activity, the ability to increase and decrease dosing and the ability to change the binders and redirect the immune receptors to different antigen targets. Needless to say, that the negative comment posted about OmniCAR recently is unfounded. As you highlight, al-black... its about reproducibility at scale. And, its highly likely that all therapies (at this stage of NVV technology) would suffer a reduction in effectiveness compared to viral transduction which is being flagged as not viable in the commercial space.
The best scenario for OmniCAR would be for PTX to take (or have a third party take) OmniCAR into a Car-T clinical trial using the Lentivirus method in order to, at least, prove its safety and efficacy. But, I guess, we are at the mercy of the bigger and longer picture here. One line that struck a cord from Bec in the webinar is "CellPryme is close to our heart"! Interesting little pearler that one, IMO. We know that CellPryme is being investigated by several parties at the moment and CellPryme would have to be a "no-brainer" given its simplicity of application and its obvious attributes. So, guess, we could be close to some newsflow on that front. Whilst OmniCAR is going require more patience, as is newsflow on PTX-100, CellPryme could be the catalyst for an uplift in the SP soon.
Speaking of PTX-100, the price-action following the TF webinar reminded me of the market reaction to the interim data readout on PTX-100 in late July 2021. I hadn't long bought into PTX, and the SP dropped from about 21c on the day to about 16c by the day after the announcement. I was gobsmacked given that the market had clearly misunderstood the data. It wasn't until a webinar was organised (featuring Prof Miles Prince) a week later that the SP recovered and the market woke up to how good the data was... and remember it was during a bull market. So, whilst the data from our TF R&D is not stellar, it is perhaps highly satisfactory at this stage. As for getting a webinar to put some perspective on it from our team... I shan't be holding my breath. Can only but take solace in the fact that the data is not unacceptable and that is incomplete... and that CellPryme is potentially progressing on a corporate level.
