So it’s really getting a lot of attention.
Matthew Foehr: And we’ll add that to my list of other BD analogies. I hadn’t heard of, yes, but that’s good.
Kurt Gustafson: Not sure your forward-looking statements…
Stephen Willey: And then maybe just one more, quick one. So I think you talked before about how partners have access to, I guess, a la carte menu on the app technology and — so I guess as you roll out some of these new offerings, whether it’s OmnidAb or OmniDeep, do these just show up on the menu of offerings that a partner can choose from? Or do you think that there’s an opportunity to maybe kind of carve these out as separate entities, increase the economic ask and drive the average royalty rate across the portfolio higher over time?
Matthew Foehr: Yes, Steve, great question, an important one. And as it was kind of generally referenced in my slides in my section of the presentation today, as we’ve continued to innovate around the platform, as we continue to launch new technologies, in general, that is, I’ll say, increasing the value to our stakeholders, rightfully so. And that is something that we see as having the potential to continue as we launch new technologies. Each of our agreements are slightly different in some ways in terms of access to types of technologies or structure, if you will, of economics related to various technologies. But the spirit of your question is very much aligned to how we think about our innovations from a business perspective. So hopefully, that gives you some color. The reality is each agreement is slightly different, but that is part of our strategy when we think about launching new tech.
Stephen Willey: Very good. Thanks for doing this and thanks for taking the questions.
Matthew Foehr: Yeah, thanks Steve.
Kurt Gustafson: Okay. It looks like our next question is coming in from Nishant Gandhi, and unmute your line. You should be able to ask your question, Nishan. Nishant, I’m still showing — it looks like your line is still muted on your side. Let’s see. Nishant, can you hear me? Going once. All right, looks like we’re having some problems with that one. And that is our last question.
Nishant Gandhi: Hello? Can you hear me?
Kurt Gustafson: Oh, there we go. Nishant, yes, here we are.
Matthew Foehr: We got you.
Nishant Gandhi: Sorry, some technical issue. This is Nishant. I’m on for Robin. So Matt, you showed interesting statistics that regarding antibodies that they’re around 30% success rate, right, from Phase I to clinic. Now with your technology, you said you have more capabilities that you can optimize and develop better antibodies. Do you expect this tags to go up with your antibodies? Like do you think you can push this number higher? Like what are your thoughts on that?
Matthew Foehr: Yes, great question, Nishant and one we talk about a lot. And those data that I presented, very fresh data presented two weeks ago by the Antibody Society, a real credit to Dr. Janice Reichert and her team at the Antibody Society, who do a meticulous level of monitoring of novel antibodies that enter the clinic. And specifically, that study was centered around antibodies that enter the clinic that are sponsored by commercial sponsors, right? So these highly relevant to our business. And it was interesting to see, as you look at those kind of overlapping time period bars, just the improvement that would imply based on those data that the industry is getting better at developing antibody-based medicines. It’s been known for a long time that antibodies can be more targeted than small molecules and have a number of other scientific benefits, but it was really striking to see those numbers come out a couple of weeks ago.
Now as you relate that to us, as we look at our portfolio, we have not seen, I’ll say, clinical failures in our clinical portfolio. I say that noting that we are in a business in the pharmaceutical industry where things fail, of course. But it is interesting to say. But at this point, with 31 programs either in the clinic, commercial or in registration, our data set is probably still too early, but our success rates thus far have been great. And I think that is something that validates our technology with partners, attracts new partners. But it’s probably too early or our data set might be a little too small right now to say how it relates to those new numbers that Janice or team from the Antibody Society reported, but we are excited to see that.
We feel great about the work that our partners are doing, the substantial investment into clinical development to have now over 170 clinical trials that our partners are sponsoring that are based on antibody-based medicines. I think it says a lot about their conviction around the molecules that have come out of our tech.
Nishant Gandhi: Great. Along those similar lines, what percent of your programs do you see like advancing from preclinical to clinical? I mean do you have like an internal statistics like how many programs are like advanced kind of like percentage wise?
Matthew Foehr: I don’t believe we’ve disclosed that in the recent past, but it’s in many ways, as you look at that preclinical slice, which again, is really more pre-IND, as I said earlier. We’ve found as we look at the programs that have advanced to the clinic and that are in preclinical that so far in our pipeline, it has not been a matter of if, but when in many ways, right? We’ve had very little attrition in that preclinical pre-IND slice of the portfolio pie. But there can be a lot of variability and time in that space, right, whether it’s manufacturing or designing the first clinical trial or other elements that lead up to an IND. It’s really just been more a matter of when and not if. And I think that says a lot about the technology and also the high bar that we place on putting things in that preclinical bucket.
