I keep coming back to the question i posed a while back..why would Phylogica be targeting this overcrowded 'small macrocyclic space' if they didn't have something much more powerful than their peers?
As I have posted previously, if Phylogica are indeed working on a unique cyclic molecule technology they must be confident that their macrocyclic peptides will have advantages over smaller macrocycles from the likes of Ensemble and Peptidream.
You wrote;
Phylogica can enlist nature so long as their discovery engines find the right structures.
In the March 2012 briefing, Paul Watt highlighted that all of these antibody companies and all scaffold companies are displaying diversity within one structural theme.
For the newbies, Phylogica have thousands of structural families (they've set up this library, which is literally the worlds most structural diverse peptide library, that has more shapes (keys) than anybody else in this space). Watt also highlighted that Phylogica has set out to be the locksmith, to have as many keys as possible. They've literally got billions of keys, billions of peptides from thousands of structural families, so thousands of key brands.
Add to this, if the two new technologies they are looking to validate could be used in combination i.e., the Endosomal Escape and the Macrocycle Technology, imagine the potential for targeting macroyclic CPPs? As we both know, this space is on fire.
Very exciting stuff.
Regards, Tony
PYC Price at posting:
2.3¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)