Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have a question. There have been a fair share of similar reports in which Incyte plans to "collaborate" to find more useful genes and proteins to be used for drugs, but how exactly is this affecting the company? I would imagine something they joint find would mean any royalties are shared as well, no? Do these alliances bring further value to INCY's stock (IYO)?

Thanks in advance.

Elric

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010628/n28127027.html

Incyte, Lexicon in drug discovery pact

NEW YORK, June 28 (Reuters) - Biotechnology firms Incyte Genomics Inc. (NasdaqNM:INCY - news) and Lexicon Genetics Inc. (NasdaqNM:LEXG - news) on Thursday said they had formed an alliance to discover and develop drugs using therapeutic proteins.

Under the deal, Incyte will gain access to Lexicon's LexVision database and will co-promote the database to other drug companies. Lexicon will be able to use Incyte's LifeSeq Gold database.

LexVision is a library of mammalian gene functions that can be used for drug discovery. LifeSeq Gold provides researchers with a comprehensive view of the entire human genome by revealing gene sequences.

The companies will attempt to discover proteins that can be used as therapies. A committee of scientists from each company will select up to 250 proteins for study.

Financial terms of the pact were not disclosed.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

I view this as an obvious and desirable move. I have been plugging the ISIP GeneTrove (antisense mRNA used to temporarily surpress genes in vivo), which I still value; but the LEXG gene targeting and gene traping technologies are focued on the same issue and may be better.

http://www.lexicon-genetics.com/business/technology.htm

"Gene Targeting Technology
Our gene targeting technology allows us to rapidly generate knockout mice with alterations in selected genes. This technology, which is covered by 5 issued U.S. patents, allows us to generate highly-specific alterations in targeted genes, including alterations that selectively disrupt, or conditionally regulate, the function of the targeted gene. Fourteen companies have taken sublicenses on our targeting technology for their internal target validation process."

"Genome-wide Gene Trapping Technology
Lexicon invented genome-wide gene trapping technology and has used it to create more than 1,500 new gene knockouts per week. These knockouts are stored in a liquid nitrogen vault in our OmniBank library. We have more than 100,000 mouse clones that are used to discover the functions of human genes on a large scale. Our gene trapping technology also captures gene sequence information, which has enabled us to generate databases of human and mouse DNA sequence information from genes throughout the genome. We have filed patent applications for the gene sequences in these databases that we believe to be novel, and are continuing to use these databases to obtain full-length gene sequence information for drug discovery."

It looks like INCY has done the next best thing to acquring this technology outright.

The thing that is unexpected is that the press release is fairly clear that they will develop drug targets into commercialization....

"Lexicon and Incyte have established a major drug discovery alliance to develop a pipeline of therapeutic protein products for development and commercialization by the two companies. A committee of senior scientists from each company will select up to 250 secreted proteins for functional characterization."

"Lexicon and Incyte will share the resulting discoveries and related patent rights, and take them forward for development and commercialization opportunities. Each party will be entitled to receive milestone and royalty payments for products commercialized by the other party. Lexicon and Incyte estimate that the alliance could ultimately yield several commercialized products for each company."

I still do not see INCY or LEXG actually producing drugs, but they may do enough pre-clinical work to make a patented target-drug very attractive and then auction it off to pharmas or biotechs that do want to do clinical trials, drug manufacturing, sales etc.

The stock market seems to like the deal and it should appeal to those who think that you must make drugs to make money.

I envisioned, INCY merely providing this type of technology to subscribers to enhance their drug discovery and commercialization efforts.





Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Interesting that first INCY shuts down their gene-targeting group, which LEXG likely took a dim view of, and then they do a deal with LEXG. Wanna bet there's a connection?

O
o
.
.
<Fushi><
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

<Fushi>< as usual, you're well informed and very insightful, not to mention, clever.

So, what do you think of INCY's strategy. They seem to have particularly close relationships with SQNM/GMNI and LEXG, although the LEXG dealfor drug discover is really not much fifferent than deals with other small biotechs (except that LEXG really is not a drug development company any more than INCY is). It seems to me that INCY must be careful relative to its subscribers. I do not think that they want INCY competing with them while acting as their "partner" with acccess to their plans and progress. So by "partnering" with small biotechs with more input and a larger percentage of the products, INCY maintains independence and objectivity. That is all that the first agreeements with LEXG really is except that INCY could end up with 100% of some products (which will probably be just refined drug targets). INCY was apparently eager to include the LEXG technology and databases (exclusively) as part of its subscription package. I think LEXG already has 14 subscribers and I think this deal will now require people who want the LEXG data base to come through INCY to get it and the technology, although most of the revenue will end up with LEXG.

This is speculation and I did NOT hear the conference call so tell me if I am all wet.

INCY may be content with these sort of alliances and it may actually be the best arrangement. It like a "virtual corporation" with two tracking stocks (INCY and LEXG). I am starting to think of INCY as a "virtual integrated pharma"

It has several types of relationships:

Core Business (Proteom, SQNM, LEXG)

Unput to chipmakers (CGW, MOT, A, PKI)

Drug discovery (LEXG, Galapogos, and other small biotechs)

Drug development, and marketing (big pharmas)

I suspect that these alliances and partnerships in core business area could mature into M&A and give the parties time to see how it would work.

I must end this post with my usual admonitions to acquire the DYAX, LSBC and ISIP drug technologies; expand into non-human/non-native proteins with DVSA, MAXY etc. and do not get shut out of the non-protein drug/medical markets (antisense RNA, transcription factors, gene therapy, tissue engineering).







Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can't seem to find Galapogos (a drug discovery company you have mentioned is "allied?" with INCY. Could you direct me to their website or another source of info about them...

Thanks in advance.

Elric

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
incylong RE: "So, what do you think of INCY's strategy? They seem to have particularly close relationships with SQNM/GMNI and LEXG, although the LEXG deal for drug discovery is really not much different than deals with other small biotechs (except that LEXG really is not a drug development company any more than INCY is)."

What exactly is INCY's strategy? I haven't a clue. A real mish-mashie hodge-podge of deals, but where are they going? Is it the “Database of Databases” with strings attached, or do they actually want to develop drugs?

I did listen to the conference call. Most of the talking was done by LEXG's CEO Art "I'm way smarter than even I think I am" Sands and INCY's Roy "I don't do PR" Whitfield. Unfortunately, I'm can't say I'm 100% clear on the purpose of this deal, but here's what I could make of it (of course most analysts know so little science they tend not to ask terribly informative questions, so half of this is just logical deductions on my part--caveat emptor):

1) INCY's LifeSeq Gold database will now cross-reference genes that have been knocked out in mice by LEXG. It probably won't include the results of the analyses of these mice, just that it has been done. For INCY, this is a continuation of their attempts to accrete genomic information and compete with CRA for providing the ultimate kick-ass "Database of Databases" for Big Pharma.

2) For LEXG, cross-referencing LifeSeq Gold to LexVision is in essence advertising for the latter, which so far has only one subscriber, BMY (the fourteen subscribers you mentioned, if that's the current number, are in fact merely customers for contract knockouts). In return, INCY will get a %age of LEXG's database revenues (I doubt this will amount to much). Obviously, LEXG isn't happy with having only one customer and is drooling over the impressive client list that INCY has. Now when a Big Pharma scientist searches INCY's database for a favorite gene, she will see a link leading directly to LEXG, who will conveniently sell her a knockout mouse for $100K (plus royalties?). Sort of a banner ad strategy. Hope it works better.

3) LEXG will also apparently have access to LifeSeq Gold to help them identify targets for their in house small molecule drug discovery program. In contrast to what you wrote incylong, LEXG is clearly a drug discovery company, or at least is moving rapidly away from their roots as a contract knockout company dependent on downstream royalties. They want to make drugs. See their recent purchase of Coelacanth Corporation, a combinatorial chemistry outfit in Princeton NJ.

4) The most interesting aspect of this deal is that INCY and LEXG will jointly select 250 secreted protein targets for LEXG to knockout in mice and then analyze in their “Mayo Clinic for mice” (let me guess, Art thought that one up). Supposedly these targets will be focused on CV, CNS, immunology, blood, diabetes, obesity and cancer indications (what else is left!). Presumably they will be genes INCY knows or thinks they have a patent position on. They claim 18 months from sequence to knockout phenotype. The deal runs 3 years plus an optional 2. Each then picks development candidates from the spoils and the other gets royalties. How they divvy them up is not clear (anyone for Art vs. Roy, mano a mano?). It is also not clear to me why this part of the deal is focused on protein therapeutics. Granted, the development times tend to be faster (although that is changing). Maybe LEXG wants to keep all the small molecule targets to themselves. Also, INCY has zero chemistry capabilities as far as I'm aware (or any preclinical capabilities, which Roy discussed on the CC).

Interesting question: what is INCY going to do with its validated targets, once it has them (same goes for any of the other deals they've struck)? Stick them in a database? Sell them? Develop them?

I bet the latter. Who wants to be just a database provider/patent hog/pharmacogenomic amalgam? The money's in selling drugs.

All in all, an interesting deal. There's a lot to be said for in vivo target validation on this scale.

To bad none of the analysts asked what happened to INCY's knockout group. Dopes.

O
o
.
.
<Fushi><
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3


<Fushi><..o00{"What exactly is INCY's strategy?"}


That is a fair question.


But, I believe that the statement "The money's in selling drugs." Is a glib response that is becoming obsolete.

As I've noted elsewhere, the pace of bringing new drugs to market seems to be accelerating. Every one seems to have a cure for cancer etc. In a few years, I expect that patent expiration will not be the big problem for pharmas, the problem will be obsolence, which will be much harder to predict and almost impossible to control. I expect that drug development-manufacturing-marketing companies will have a hard time recovering their costs. At the moment, MRK is about the only pharma stock that I would get excited about. I think a few of the biotechs will acquire amazingly influential positions with their technology IP. (Hint, I am also long GNTA, ISIP, ONXX, CEGE, SGMO, GERN, CRXL, DYAX, LSBC)

To the extent that the pharmas survive, they will do so by relying on drug dscovery technology from the biotech companies. What I believe INCY is trying to do strategically is provide the best genomics-proteomics database available and a portfolio of tools that can be "sold" to the pharmas to do their own drug discovery-development.
Gene targeting is one of those tools. Other widely used or potentially widely used tools include phage display of protein domains (DYAX), packing cells for virus vectors (CRXL), antisense gene supression (ISIP), vectors for enhanced gene expression (Galapagos), protein synthesis (LSBC, GZTC, etc.) and separation/purification (LSBC, DYAX, etc.), etc. the more of these that INCY can add to its portfolio, the stronger its position becomes.

Along the way, INCY has sold the cDNA to a number of chip manufacturers (A, MOT, CGW, PKI) and where biotechs have not had the cash to become normal subscribers, INCY has cut deals that give it a much bigger slice of the pie.

Here is a prediction for you, there will always be some small molecule and protein (antibody) drugs but in the future, I expect that antisense will be the primary mode of suppressing genes therapeutically and enhanced gene expression will be accomplished by targeted gene therapy that delivers the gene of interest and/or a transcription factor for the gene. Where antibodies and other proteins are needed, they will often be delivered as genes by viruses (or naked DNA).

My biggest fear for INCY is that they will not have as much leverage over some of these technologies as they do over the protein and small molecule drug development model.






Looking over the deals, I've been trying to sort them into various piles.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
incylong RE: "Here is a prediction for you, there will always be some small molecule and protein (antibody) drugs but in the future, I expect that antisense will be the primary mode of suppressing genes therapeutically and enhanced gene expression will be accomplished by targeted gene therapy that delivers the gene of interest and/or a transcription factor for the gene. Where antibodies and other proteins are needed, they will often be delivered as genes by viruses (or naked DNA)."

And here's a prediction for you: ten years from now there will only be one blockbuster antisense drug and one blockbuster gene therapy on the market. Everything else will be either a small molecule or protein (mostly the former).

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Fushi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6

Hi Fushi, thanks for staying up late and commenting. Let me first comment on small molecules. Note that I said "in the future" (I did not limit it to 10 years, but I would expect it within the next 30 years)

I'm a chemist and was sort of raised on the idea of a small molecule drug as the way to go. However, here are the problems I see.

If we consider non-protein compounds up to about 5000 molecular weight as "small molecule drugs" this probably includes stuff on the market now and in the past and captures biological products hidden away in the rainforst plants etc. There is no reason to believe that for any specific disease/condition there will be an effective (much less safe and affordable) treatment among this group. There is just no logical connection. For 100 years it has been a process of trial and error to find an active agent then systematically modify it to optimize its effectiveness. In the future, if we knew the active site of a protein, then we could probably design a small molecule that would act on it (and God knows what else). Ultimately, we are just designing ligands to biological targets. I suspect that the ratio of potency will be something like this: Effective dose at transcription factor target nM, effective dose at mRNA target uM, effective dose at protein target mM. If you go after a protein you must have a compound that has a million times less effect on transcription factors to avoid possible side effects...etc.

You must determine the structure of the target site in some detail, before you can rationally design a small molecule ligand.

Designing and synthesizing small molecule ligands for known biological targets will be expensive and time consuming. What does that buy you? Maybe you can take the drug orally which has great consumer appeal. To be taken orally, the drug must have stability and physical properties that limit your structural options....You probably cannot really optimize on the biological receptor, you must compromise.

Overall, except for a relative few fortutious cases (most/many of which we already have) there will not be small molecule drugs that are economical to make, highly effective against a specific target, do not interfere with non-target systems (no side effects), and have desirable pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics to deliver the effective dose where it is needed.

Proteins (antibodies) are the "natural" way to bind key receptors. The advantage of proteins over "small molecules" is that you can systematicvally synthesize a flock of them and optimize on the target receptor or you can discover the native ligand in vivo and design around that. (You do not even need the protein, all you need is the gene...molecular evolution...AMVE, MAXY, DVSA, PRCS)

The limitation on proteins is delivery (ask PRCS)...how do you get the protein into the cell?

Well as I pointed out, engineering a virus (or naked DNA) to (1) target the specific cells of interest (see ONXX) (2) avoid the immune system (see CRXL), (3) express the protein in the cell is sort of a universal approach..if you can make it work for one protein, you can make it work for many... Suddenly the idea of synthesizing and isolatng and purifying and maintaining protein drugs per se looks unattractive...(in most cases)... let the virus do the delivery and let the cell synthesize the protein de novo.

Well what about antisense. The beauty is that as soon as you know the gene, you know what the drug should look like and you should be able to systematically synthesize via established and routine procedures very quickly and very in expensively. By its nature, the antisense mRNA drugswill be very selective (safe) and the whole process has the potential to be put together in an automated process...punch i the gene code and out pops the antisense drug ...ultimately in minutes...with good confidence that it will work and be safe...undesirable side-effects of suppressing a specific gene can be catelogued.

I see antisense (for down-regulating native genes) and gene therapy (for up-regulating native genes or expressing new genes/proteins) as complementary. There will be niches for protein/antibody drugs (from chicken eggs (GERN etc.), tobacco plants (LSBC), milk (GZTC, PPL)) because they will be available in large quanties very cheaply....without the isses of gene therapy...but selective delivery will be a limiting problem.

I think small molecules will be limited to a few very common products (yes asprin will be around forever), antibiotics and cytotoxins and pro-cytotoxins, hormones, steroids, neuro-transmitters, organoarsenicals (that target zinc-finger proteins), probably some caspase inhibitors, etc.

I keep waiting for the big pharmas to go back through their failed clinical studies (from the last 50 years) to find compounds that worked great in some people, but not in enough to be statistically significant or were too toxic to sub-populations. These drugs would appear to have utility in sub-populations that can now be effeciently identified by DNA analyses (SNPs). This appears to me to be the bigest pool of potential "new" small molecule drugs. I would think we would see a "flood" of compounds that cold be released for use in groups that had been screened by SNP analysis to optimize efficacy and avoid toxicity.

Consider some areas of development: Cancer therapy, I believe the GNTA anti-Bcl-2 antisense drug will greatly enhance the effectiveness of classical chemotherapy (cytotoxic agents) and radioherapy. Exactly the same principle will work on antibiotic resistant bacteria....suppress penicillinase and revive the effectiveness of that well-tested drug.

Then, ONXX (with CRXL technology) will provide a method of systematically purging pre-cancerous clones from people before they are clinically detectable. cancer rates will fall ....so why doe we need all those new fangeled drugs and treatments on the drawing boards at the big pharma's and biotechs?

Of course, we will continue to have B-cell vaccines and VICL will bring us T-cell vaccines.

This is just my humble opinion of course, but I do have about most of my IRA in biotech stocks and none in pharmas. And because I expect protein and small molecule drugs to be with us through my lifetime, I own HGSI, MEDX and PDLI stock as well as most of those mentioned above...not to mention INCY, which depends on the success of the big pharmas...




















Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
incylong, I think your post illustrates why intelligent, motivated investors still have no business investing in biotech. The stories these companies spin are almost impossible to ignore, but are full of traps for the unwary.

To pick on just one point you made, that while seemingly making perfect sense, is in fact completely wrong:

"I keep waiting for the big pharmas to go back through their failed clinical studies (from the last 50 years) to find compounds that worked great in some people, but not in enough to be statistically significant or were too toxic to sub-populations."

I agree, it sounds so simple, so elegant, so profitable. Why is this idea so obvious to you and I, but not even one big pharma is taking advantage of this treasure trove?

I'm sure you'll find this hard to believe, I did at first, but there is one very simple answer: the data doesn't exist anymore. Yes, they just threw it out. Which illustrates why you, The Motley Fool, and even biotech insiders like me, shouldn't be investing in biotech. None of us know squat. There is in fact no possible way we could know squat, unless we actually happened to work for a biotech in which we were planning to invest (which is why I own stock in only one biotech).

Fushi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm sure you'll find this hard to believe, I did at first, but there is one very simple answer: the data doesn't exist anymore. Yes, they just threw it out.
________________________________________________________________________



I, for one, would find this very difficult to believe (perhaps you have specific examples???). Coca Cola and other companies have records going back to their origional recipes. Tobacco companies, who had, and continue to have a large amount of dollars on the line, retained records of research they did many years ago, even to their own detriment.

I just don't believe that a company would throw away the records on projects that cost them millions of dollars. Certainly they would have records going back at least the last 15-20 years, which would probably be the most valuable and most easily interpreted data.

Research scientists are usually very methodical people. Even if company records don't exist, the memories and personal records of those that have worked in the field for many years would be an invaluable resource. These people are probably still employed by the major pharmas.

That's just my 2 cents.

Matt
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
RE: "That's just my 2 cents."

Your 2 cents are in the mail. ;)

The real question is whether you plan to make investment decisions base upon what sounds like a logical deduction in the absences of any direct evidence or even specialized knowledge of the subject. Coca cola? Sound's like the answer is Yes. Admittedly Foolish, but also very foolish IMHO (please ignore my definition of "IMHO" on the MLNM board!). And, no, I don't think much of Peter Lynch's book.

Yes I have specific examples. No, I'm not going to tell you (or I would have to kill you). Perhaps you could call up the IR department of your favorite big pharma, but I doubt you'd get anywhere.

Just think about it for a moment. To do what incylong has proposed, the company in question will need large quantities of the drug and an approved production process, perhaps repeated toxicology if there are any changes in the former (end of story for any protein-based drug), historical patient samples (sorry, don't exist, so end of story for any non-lethal indication), all the necessary records (10% will disappear each year), the memories of the scientists/clinicians involved (if not dead or rapidly becoming senile, now working for a competitor), and very possibly repeated clinical trials. Difficult, expensive, and until they do it for each drug, scientifically unproven. Which would you rather spend money on: a known looser, or something fresh that has a 10% chance of success?

Of course, in the future, patient genotyping studies will be performed during the clinical trials.

Note: I'm not talking about something very recent like Rezulin (see: http://www.rezulin-facts.com/ ). But in that case the question becomes whether there is a single gene polymorphism that can be assayed with 100% reliability predict the observed very rare lethal side effect. I bet the answer is no. [As I've mentioned before, the whole patient genotyping question is much more complex than the article you read in Newsweek let on.] Since they are suing them, I doubt many patient samples will be available. Besides, Pfizer/Warner Lambert probably wants to get shut of the whole Rezulin PR mess as quickly as possible.

As always, JMHO, and I may be full of it,
Fushi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4

Unfortunately, the Motley Fool boards seem to be down [about 0630] so I'll respond to your e-mail see what the dialoge was later on the board (if MF has not gone out of business). [I guess they are not out of business.]

You sort of contradict yourself, you seem to know what all the pharmas are doing, but say that we cannot know what is happening outside the company we work for.

There may be legal or ethical reasons why the pharmas would systematically dump clinical data, but I would think that to simply avoid covering the same ground twice, they would have records of what compounds were tested clinically and why they were droped...i.e., something as simple as "compound x, at doses of a,b,c, was effective in 3 patients but was very toxic to 5 and had no effects in the other 20." Of course, without blood or tissue samples it would not be possible to immediately screen for SNPs etc. but, If a pharma has data like this they could distinguish this compound for say "Compound y, at doses A, B. C was not effective in any patients and caused dose related toxicity." I suspect that some of the data are in patents and some of it is in the medical literature. Some of the experiments eventually lead to commercially valuable drugs and may have been submitted to the FDA who also keep files.

Thus, if you are talkig about the actual biological specimens and clinical notes, you may be right, it could all systematically be long-gone, but some of the data must have survived at least in the brains of retired employees...I suspect a lot of personal careers turned on the fact that a drug was very promising in many patients but was just to toxic in a few, or gave great results in a small group but never enough to be statistically significant...If a scientists worked on a drug for 5 years and had it end that way, he/she would probably remember it...

Perhaps a bigger problem at this point is that some of the patents may have expired or the information may be common knowledge now with little hope of gaining an IP advantage. However, I would think that discovering the SNPs that made a drug effective or toxic would be patentable along with clinical information about the effectivemess of the drug in the subgroup.

So, while acknowledging that there may be some barriers to this approach, and stipulating that the biological samples that would have allowed immediate classification of SNPs are probably not available, I think that review of existant files looks good relative to extracting the bark of rainforest trees looking for biologically active compounds....

I don't plan to sell my biotech portfolio. Especially sense I understand it a lot better than I understand optical swithes or airplanes. Taken to an extreme, your warning could be a vote against owning any individual stock or sector fund (including pharmas).

Finally, the relationship between the stock price of a biotech stock and the value of its technology, is (I believe) unfortunately very poor.

After reading yourlast coments about us old guys dieing off a going senile, I guess I have to point out that I still remember vividly my successes and failures from the 1960s and 1970s. That is 25-30 years ago and I'm only in my mid-50s (not exactly dead) with two children under three years old....

Age will mellow you Fushi....then you'll be bright, knowledgable and have perspective...what a combination...





Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
thank you incylong and fushi for your excellent and always educational contributions...

if i may, my dad worked for ABBOTT for 45 years, if the records of his and others research no longer exist, the memories are likely fading as well since he and i'm sure many others have simply died and taken their memories with them...I too would find it astonishing that the records didn't exist the way for example my dad would catalogue most everything in his life...

again i do appreciate your continuing efforts...of course fushi's humor is always an added delight, while incylongs own meticulous research into these platforms have educated us well...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
incylong,

Re: "You sort of contradict yourself, you seem to know what all the pharmas are doing, but say that we cannot know what is happening outside the company we work for."

Did you consider that maybe I work for a company that has reason to know? Of course, although I won't comment on my current or former employers and our partners (or competitors in any great detail), I am trying to make people think about their underlying assumptions.

You can take it or leave it, but over the last several years I've worked for two of the major genomics companies that are commonly discussed on TMF. What I've learned is that company PR, logical deductions and analysts opinions are worthless it you don't have at a minimum substantial specialized knowledge. And for some reason, there is virtually none of that on TMF (postdocs are great fun to argue with but they don't really know what they are talking about--academia is not biotech, and the only way you learn about drug development is by doing it). Unfortunately, most of my peers seem uninterested in interacting with the great unwashed masses (so maybe it's my little mission in life to spread what tiny bit of wisdom I can), or when they do, they come across as pretentious buffoons (I may be pretentious, or a buffoon, but I hope never a pretentious buffoon). Even for those few around here with MDs or PhDs or some experience in this general area, it is often laughable when I read some of the interpretations of the latest news on the boards regarding my own company. What is frightening is not that people can be clueless, but that they don't realize it. I can only assume this is equally true regarding other biotechs I haven't worked for. Take for instance the interesting, but ultimately uninformed discussion going on about the end of HGSI's database agreement and the number of targets their partners have found. [Remarkable that INCY hasn't been mentioned even once in this discussion! Where do they think their new database customers are going to come from?]

I strongly suspect the same situation exists for all of high-tech, and probably for all other industries as well (Krispy Kreme donuts?). I therefore acknowledge my cluelessness and invest accordingly.

As much as I love TMF, Tom and Dave et al.'s belief in their own down-home wisdom is depressing. They have a great message about index funds and taking control of your financial destiny, but then (because it sounds to much like Bogle?) they dilute it with this foolish "Foolish investors can outperform the Wise". I'm all for taking control, as long as you are not prone to self delusion.

I happen to own TYC, but I don't for a moment believe I understand it, despite having followed it from late 1998. Is their accounting dishonest? Can their acquisition rate continue at the same pace? What the hell are "connectors"? Got me. It is a speculation, pure and simple. The same with NERX and QCOM, the only other stocks I currently own, and GNTA which I'm thinking about (of course outside of my employer, who forces shares on me at a priced-to-perfection valuation that I'd never pay on the open market).

Therefore,

RE: "Taken to an extreme, your warning could be a vote against owning any individual stock or sector fund (including pharmas),"

is an accurate assessment of my opinion, strongly confirmed by most historical studies of stock ownership. If you doubt me, just post something to the contrary on a board that Datasnooper frequents!

I enjoy arguing with you, Richard, but you will obviously make up your own mind about what to invest in. However, if I seem like an reasonably intelligent, knowledgeable person to you, I hope you take it to heart that I consider myself, modicum of insider knowledge and all (and I still have a lot to learn), as clueless as everyone else on this board regarding INCY and the other stocks you mentioned. If you think twice before leaping, then I think I've accomplished something valuable.

Oh, and IMHO, perspective doesn't come from age, it comes from experience. They are not the same thing.

It's been real, but it's time to get back to work or my shares will never be worth anything.

Good luck,
Fushi
(who, incidentally, is NOT a biotech bear, otherwise she would have found a different industry to work in!)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

I did a little (very little) digging to see if I could come up with some clinical data. US Patents 4,302,471 and 4,247,540
were the first I came up with. However, I will grant that the relevance of the information to the issue under discussion is doubious. It occurs to me that many of the clinical studies would have been done by physicians (outside the pharma) Perhaps one must go past the pharma to the physicians actually conducting the studies.

Regarding age and experience, I agree that they are not the same; but the both provide elements of prespective that cann not be provided by the other. I think that experience obviously changes (increases) your database of knowledge; but age changes how you react to (prioritize?) that knowledge (for better or worse). But, we cannot totally decouple experience and age, as reasonably inquisitive people do gain experience over time. Some of it comes in brief intense episodes of exposure, but some comes day to day.

I appreciate your sharing your experience and I certainly agree that "The Fool" is a bit selfserving. As i see it, you can use a acturial approach to investing: (1) diversify (2) pick companies with long successful track records, and (3) integrate over time.

Or you can try to use specific knowledge to pick the winners in a specific time period.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

6/28/01 TMF INCY Post #742:

"Interesting that first INCY shuts down their gene-targeting group, which LEXG likely took a dim view of, and then they do a deal with LEXG. Wanna bet there's a connection?

O
o
.
.
<Fushi><"


8/16/01 from the Yahoo! INCY board:

" ... Incyte is laying off 300 of its employees at their St. Louis facility. "

I assume that these are the same thing?-- Incylong

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

on 7/3/01 I said:

"Consider some areas of development: Cancer therapy, I believe the GNTA anti-Bcl-2 antisense drug will greatly enhance the effectiveness of classical chemotherapy (cytotoxic agents) and radioherapy. Exactly the same principle will work on antibiotic resistant bacteria....suppress penicillinase and revive the effectiveness of that well-tested drug."


Now:

Thursday September 20 5:15 PM ET

Crucial Staph Genes Identified
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - In an analysis of the DNA of a potentially deadly bacterium, scientists have identified a number of genes that appear to be essential for the bug's survival.

The function of many genes in the bacterium, known as Staphylococcus aureus or simply ``Staph,' remains unknown, but the identification of some essential genes may provide researchers with new targets for drugs to fight the bacterium, investigators suggest.

Staph is a common, but serious, cause of infection--particularly in hospitals. Several strains of the bacterium have become increasingly resistant to the effects of antibiotics.

To get a better idea of how the resilient bacterium survives, a team at GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Research in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, analyzed Staph's genes. They did this using a type of genetic material called antisense RNA, which is programmed to block specific genes.

In experiments in animals and in laboratory cultures, Dr. Yinduo Ji and colleagues identified 150 genes that seem to be essential for Staph's survival. When antisense RNA was used to block the activation of these genes, the bacterium could not survive, according to the report in the September 21st issue of the journal Science.

About 40% of the genes are versions of known bacterial genes. Another 30% appear to be versions of genes with known functions. But the function of the remaining genes is a mystery, even though Staph seems to depend on them to survive.

Ji and colleagues conclude that using antisense RNA is an effective way to identify crucial genes in Staph. The approach, they state, might identify new targets for antibiotic medications.

SOURCE: Science 2001;293:2266-2269.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20010920/hl/staph_1.html

I got this off the Yahoo!! AVII board; Msg: 10357 of 10369.

Print the post Back To Top