Parag Mallick: I’ll take that one. This is Parag. I think what you can anticipate in general from our paper publication strategy is that it’ll follow really three phases. The timing of publications I won’t speak to. But generally, you should think about our publications as falling into three categories. The first are really technology foundational manuscripts. So for instance, things like our nanoparticle conjugation publication prior will also have some similar sorts of publications around the prism algorithm and approach, as well as our nanoparticle deposition approach. And then, there’ll be a next series of papers that really speak to demonstrations of platform capabilities. And then, the third area that we anticipate publications are — really publications with our partners examining biological questions using the platform.
Daniel Brennan: Thanks for that. Maybe final one just on Thermo, Olink. Obviously that’s I think you kind of alluded to kind of the excitement in proteomics and some of the explosive growth that’s happening. Just kind of thoughts on just the competitive environment. I know you positioned your technology is really kind of super differentiated, but just wondering how you think about again in the wake of like the largest tools company buying Olink just how do you think about that either validating or from a competitive standpoint, just any color on that. Thanks.
Sujal Patel: Yes. Dan, I think that the announcement that Thermo Fisher was going to acquire Olink, I think tremendously validates the proteomic space and as well really validates that new approaches are important in the proteomics world. If you kind of look at the acquisition, it’s really taking what I would say is so far the most successful new proteomics entrance and putting in the hands of the market leader in Thermo Fisher. And so I think that there’s a couple of things that are exciting from my segment. One is that it’s clearly a admission from Thermo Fisher that other approaches besides the current gold standard of mass spectrometry are important to the customer base. And I think that the price point achieved in today’s market climate, I think is really indicative of the fact that proteomics is incredibly important to the scientific community who’s looking to unlock the next-generation of discoveries to accelerate drug development and really deliver on precision and personalized medicine.
So from that standpoint, I think it’s really great. One of the things that you were alluding to is sort of how this might change the competitiveness in the marketplace. And being someone who’s been around startups for a couple of decades, I will comment that in my experience, when a large company buys a young nimble entrant like an Olink, the technologies don’t get more competitive, they become broader in the marketplace, but innovation slows. And so from my standpoint, it’s pretty exciting for the marketplace as well, because I think that Olink is a company that’s executed the best out of the new proteomic entrants and out of those that are focused more on the discovery end of the spectrum, like Nautilus, like some of the other peptide sequencing approaches or other sample prep approaches, our view when we look at the technology that we’re building, the value proposition mode because of the complex nature of what we’ve developed, and as well the specifications of our intended product for next year, I think that we’ve got a complete winner on our hands.
And that’s why we’re focused on being heads down and going and getting all the development completed and getting this thing out the door.
Daniel Brennan: Great. Yes. Obviously also the Standard BioTools and the SomaLogic deal, so there were certainly a lot of strategic moves within the quarter, but thanks for the feedback and congrats on the quarter.
Sujal Patel: Thanks, Dan.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. And our next question comes from the line of Matt Sykes from Goldman Sachs. Your question, please.
Ivy Kozlowski: Hi, this is Ivy Kozlowski on for Matt. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one, what are your thoughts on feedback we’ve gotten from other companies on pharma CapEx spend and how do you feel about your price as we move towards launch?
Sujal Patel: Yes. Thanks for the question. So in terms of pharma CapEx spend, I think that I will answer this question. I know that you are likely getting a lot of color from the large caps that have already reported, in particular, CapEx spend appears to be a little bit lumpier internationally. But from our perspective, because we are a very small company that’s just about to introduce a product, really what’s more important is what does pharma want to spend their money on? And in conversations with many, many customers in the pharmaceutical space as well as in the diagnostic space, what we’ve heard is that there is still substantial budget in 2024 that is available for technologies that are going to make a dent in drug development and biomarker discovery and help in specific areas.
And so from our standpoint, I don’t really see an impact to our business with the capital environment that’s out there. The second half of your question was really related to price point, and the answer on that front is I feel very good about the price point, and I feel good about it both from a market perspective and from a direct feedback from our potential customers’ perspective. On the market side, 2023 saw the continued increase of the price of the top end mass spectrometers, which is the gold standard in proteomics today with the release of Thermo Fisher’s Orbitrap Astral, which pushes the price point even closer to $2 million for an initial deal size for the instrument. So we feel very good about our price point, where our initial deal size, which includes the instrument, services support, site prep install, some consumables to get going, that whole package will be roughly $1 million, and we’ll talk more about exact pricing as we get closer to launch, and I feel good about that price point relative to the other product in the marketplace.
From a customer feedback perspective, we continue to discuss pricing of the instrument and samples with our customers, and we feel like we’re hitting a really good sweet spot where the price of the instrument is appropriately high to warrant — which is warranted by the specifications of the product, how many proteins, what’s the dynamic range, sensitivity and then in addition to that, on the consumable side, we’ve gotten good feedback from customers that the specifications, that price point makes a lot of sense based on the specifications of the system.
Ivy Kozlowski: Okay. Great. That’s super helpful. And then just one more for me. Could you talk through what you’re looking for when you’re working with external manufacturers to prevent future supply chain risks and in general, how that process is going and if there’s been any bumps along the way?
