Cyprotex Share Discussion Threads

[buywell2] 21/3/2016 08:34

The performance of Cyprotex V the FTSE 100 over the last 5 years looks very impressive indeed as the chart in the header shows

For mathematicians , the area of the CRX chart is MUCH bigger above that of the FTSE 100 thus indicating the size differential
The chart below shows Cyprotex plotted against the FTSE 100 Index





Since 2015 the difference is becoming even more marked as CRX is rising and the FTSE 100 has stalled.


For those who like FTSE 100 stocks and I know some knockers have indicated on this thread that they do ... even though the header chart says they are well wrong
( also (SBS) SourceBioscience Group is outperforming the FTSE 100 in a similar stellar fashion ) .... I have some news

I expect the FTSE 100 is about to lose its battle with 6200 this week

If so chartwise the implications are dire

The chart supports a forecast downside trend to 5200 within around 3 months with possible chart support at 5400

This is supported by the BREXIT vote date of june 23rd



If polls suggest an exit then the chart could start to fall quicker , the market does not like unknowns

Leaving the EU will now be seen as one , however I shall be voting to do so ... exit ... which I feel will 5 years down the road be seen as a blessing as the EU goes belly up


The green line is the sort of thing I imagine BUT for it to happen 6200 must fail this week



free stock charts from uk.advfn.com


In such a scenario safe haven, safe sector stocks should improve and banks could weaken yet again with OIL and the big FTSE commodity shares taking it down

More bad news out of china could prove to be a double whammy

If ISIL strikes in the UK prior to voting , that also could provide the impetus for a triple whammy

Guess the possible FTSE 100 level then ?









I thus expect and predict the gap to open up further as Cyprotex comes out with 2015 results that ; ''significantly'' exceed previous guidance

[buywell2] 21/3/2016 08:09

Readers here will now see that the USA Environmental Protection Agency EPA has been forced to act quickly with some kind of positive comeback re pesticides

Surely it must now act speedily to address the issue of ''conditional approvals ''

Which is now a MASSSIVE undertaking and will require a BIG spend to sort out

The scale of the problem

''Recent reviews have found vast problems with the EPA’s oversight of conditional registration. An internal audit showed in 2011 that 70 percent of all active pesticides had been conditionally approved. The audit also concluded that the agency used the label too broadly. Since then, its use has increased. Figures the EPA provided in December put the number at 80 percent.

Thousands of pesticides kept conditional status for more than 20 years, the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, found in 2010. The EPA says studies typically are due within four years.

And last year, federal auditors found the agency couldn’t reliably track how many products were conditionally registered or whether safety studies were submitted. As a result, pesticides could linger on the market for years without critical tests, the Government Accountability Office warned in August.

These aren’t new problems. At least seven independent reviews dating back to 1980 have noted flaws with the agency’s systems for tracking pesticide registrations.''







thus the recent respose the other day .... you know it makes sense


PUBLIC RELEASE: 18-MAR-2016

Physicians Committee applauds EPA decision to reduce animal use in pesticides testing

EPA says new technologies will better protect human health and reduce costs

PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE


On March 17, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in a letter to stakeholders from the Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs that to "better ensure protection of human health ... its immediate goal is to significantly reduce the use of animals" in pesticides testing requirements collectively called the "6-pack."

The 6-pack includes three acute lethal dose oral, inhalation, and dermal toxicity tests. These tests are considered poisoning tests which assess the dose at which 50 percent of the animals in the test are killed by the test chemical. Also included are the Draize eye and skin irritation tests, and skin sensitization.

Understanding the potential effects of chemicals on humans for these serious effects is important to protecting workers and the public, and it is essential that regulatory requirements keep pace with scientific progress. Alternative methods can save time and resources and often use human tissues, offering more accurate predictions of human toxicity.

The EPA letter accompanies the finalization of guidance outlining a process to evaluate and implement alternative test methods, the release of a draft policy to waive the acute dermal toxicity tests for formulated pesticide products, and the initiation of several data analyses which will support the reduction or replacement of other 6-pack tests.

"We support EPA's efforts to replace these animal tests with methods which are more relevant to human toxicity and more humane," says Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., director of regulatory testing issues for the Physicians Committee. "Waiving the Dermal LD50 is an excellent way to kick off this initiative and will save around 3,000 animals each year. We applaud registrants who have proactively facilitated this project and encourage all registrants to support these efforts and submit internal data which would fortify and hasten EPA's analyses."

The Physicians Committee has been a driving force in the stakeholder process described by the letter, which includes EPA, nonprofit, industry, and test-method developers working cooperatively to accomplish the goal of remaking the 6-pack.











buywell2 says


Cyprotex now provide a new range of such services for the cosmetics industry to use .... how timely



They also have a range of offerings for other industries which looks set to bear fruit

[buywell2] 21/3/2016 07:47

I will answer that one , I know a bit more than him and it is my thread .

Cyprotex have done and continue to do contract work for the USA EPA

This contract work was won via the USA acquisitions of Apredica and CeeTox for the EPA's ToxCast project which is still ongoing

A library of around 10,000 chemical compounds needs to be tested ( growing )
Currently circa 1,500 have been tested but exact findings not yet published in detail.

Both the acquisition targets had won contracts to provide Toxicology work for the EPA ( Apredica via the prior acquisition of USA company Cellumen )

These were contracts of 5 years duration

These contracts were won because the EPA liked the technology and accuracy of data that the IP protected testing gave.

Cyprotex have improved upon that technology and data accuracy and expanded the range of offerings since the dates of acquisition.

The EPA has a massive amount of work on its plate ... hence its budget is also massive

Health issues are emerging ( see previous posts ) , for the EPA to deal with.

The use of ''conditional approval'' WITHOUT toxicology testing data , presumably granted by prior incumbants of EPA top management ( will check back ) , have resulted in legal actions by 2 BIG Chemical companies , which have resulted in the first company stopping the EPA from withdrawing its ''conditional approval''

The second company is currently going through a legal challenge process to also prevent the EPA from withdrawing its ''conditional approval''.

Clearly the EPA is in a pickle of its own making.

Indeed the EPA is even being sued by other agencies over the issue of ''conditional approvals''


I suspect that the EPA now wished it have never considered the idea of ''conditional approvals'' as with a legal precident now set from the first case it will almost be impossible for them to get such ''conditional approvals'' withdrawn.

''Recent reviews have found vast problems with the EPA’s oversight of conditional registration. An internal audit showed in 2011 that 70 percent of all active pesticides had been conditionally approved. The audit also concluded that the agency used the label too broadly. Since then, its use has increased. Figures the EPA provided in December put the number at 80 percent.

Thousands of pesticides kept conditional status for more than 20 years, the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, found in 2010. The EPA says studies typically are due within four years.

And last year, federal auditors found the agency couldn’t reliably track how many products were conditionally registered or whether safety studies were submitted. As a result, pesticides could linger on the market for years without critical tests, the Government Accountability Office warned in August.

These aren’t new problems. At least seven independent reviews dating back to 1980 have noted flaws with the agency’s systems for tracking pesticide registrations.''






WITHOUT THAT IS OF NEW TOXICOLOGY DATA WHICH SUPPORTS THE EPA's WITHDRAWAL CASE

Hence the need for the EPA to put the pedal to the metal in getting these circa 10,000 TOXICOLOGY UNTESTED chemical compounds tested pronto ie loads more work coming along for companies like Cyprotex who have already done such Toxicology work for the EPA .

The EPA circa 10 years back used animals to test some of these chemical compounds for their toxicology properties at MASSIVE cost and with poor results data wise , as they realized unlike the FDA that animal obtained results were both meaningless and illogical.

Thus the EPA moved away from the use of animals and embraced the use of modern in-vito assays using living human cells plus they looked at also getting data from in-silico computer based models, they have granted ToxCast contracts since to companies that provide both types of services.

Cyprotex provides both types of services.

One of the legal challenges that the latest company that the EPA has tried to withdraw its ''conditional approval'' for .... has challenged on the basis that the data the EPA has provided is only data from a predictive computer model.

This is a BIG plus I believe because when the company challenging is successful , like the first company was.

Another precident has been set.

The EPA will have to provide BOTH in-silico AND in-vitro data to support its withdrawal case.













These 2 cases have been very recent and another is looming.

The ramifications are MASSIVE and costs will run in the $ BILLIONS as class action litigation claims will add to lost R&D and production costs for the companies involved.

Thus the lobbyists within Washington are hard at work trying to gum up the works and slow things down .... but ht news is getting out and the human damage mounts as does the eventual bill to be paid.






Re animal bans in cosmetics industry ... the EPA have recently said this



PUBLIC RELEASE: 18-MAR-2016

Physicians Committee applauds EPA decision to reduce animal use in pesticides testing

EPA says new technologies will better protect human health and reduce costs

PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE


On March 17, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in a letter to stakeholders from the Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs that to "better ensure protection of human health ... its immediate goal is to significantly reduce the use of animals" in pesticides testing requirements collectively called the "6-pack."

The 6-pack includes three acute lethal dose oral, inhalation, and dermal toxicity tests. These tests are considered poisoning tests which assess the dose at which 50 percent of the animals in the test are killed by the test chemical. Also included are the Draize eye and skin irritation tests, and skin sensitization.

Understanding the potential effects of chemicals on humans for these serious effects is important to protecting workers and the public, and it is essential that regulatory requirements keep pace with scientific progress. Alternative methods can save time and resources and often use human tissues, offering more accurate predictions of human toxicity.

The EPA letter accompanies the finalization of guidance outlining a process to evaluate and implement alternative test methods, the release of a draft policy to waive the acute dermal toxicity tests for formulated pesticide products, and the initiation of several data analyses which will support the reduction or replacement of other 6-pack tests.

"We support EPA's efforts to replace these animal tests with methods which are more relevant to human toxicity and more humane," says Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., director of regulatory testing issues for the Physicians Committee. "Waiving the Dermal LD50 is an excellent way to kick off this initiative and will save around 3,000 animals each year. We applaud registrants who have proactively facilitated this project and encourage all registrants to support these efforts and submit internal data which would fortify and hasten EPA's analyses."

The Physicians Committee has been a driving force in the stakeholder process described by the letter, which includes EPA, nonprofit, industry, and test-method developers working cooperatively to accomplish the goal of remaking the 6-pack.











buywell2 says


Cyprotex now provide a new range of such services for the cosmetics industry to use .... how timely



They also have a range of offerings for other industries which looks set to bear fruit

[wuzy] 20/3/2016 18:40

Buywell3.Read a lot of what you wrote well done, so what is your brief synopsis of this and how it affects cyprotex.Many thanks must have taken ages to put togetherRegards

[romanrory] 20/3/2016 12:17

interesting reading Buywell, thanks for posting

[buywell3] 20/3/2016 08:49

This is why I know there will be much more problems to come.

It is also why many new and existing products will have to be tested properly to ascertain their toxicity properties using modern in vitro assays together with in silico prediction.









'' the real reason that this decision is attracting so much attention is that flubendiamide is just one of thousands of pesticides that the EPA approved on a "conditional" basis, pending the results of further studies that were required to assure that agency of the chemicals' safety. The pesticide industry fears — and anti-pesticide groups hope — that many other chemicals, also approved conditionally, soon could face increased EPA scrutiny as well.

"We're really encouraged that the EPA went for cancellation" of flubendiamide's approval, rather than a lengthy process known as a "special review," says Kristin Schafer, policy director at the Pesticide Action Network, or PAN.

Conditional approvals allow the EPA to OK a pesticide when the benefits of using it outweigh any apparent risks — such as in a public health emergency. But pesticide critics such as PAN and the Natural Resources Defense Council have criticized the EPA's heavy reliance on this process. They say it has turned into an easy way for companies to start selling their products without really proving that their products meet legal safety requirements — and that the EPA seldom follows up.''





the defence

''Bayer is criticising the agency’s action. ‘Essentially, we performed the studies requested by the EPA and they showed no risk,’ company spokesman Jeff Donald tells Chemistry World. He says the EPA has based its analysis on ‘theoretical computer models’ rather than real world data. ‘We disagree with that approach,’ Donald states.''


Buywell says


This is also a reason why in-silico predictive methods will NOT be solely used.

The EPA and FDA will be forced to also stipulate in-vitro assays be used

[buywell3] 20/3/2016 08:33

There will be more of this


March 4, 2016

............. EPA Moves to Ban Bayer Pesticide ................
By: Jessica Lyons Hardcastle




After Bayer CropScience and Nichino America refused to voluntarily pull their insecticides containing flubendiamide off the market, the EPA has moved to ban sales of the commercial pest control products.

Flubendiamide is used on more than 200 crops, including soybeans, almonds, tobacco, peanuts, cotton, lettuce, alfalfa, tomatoes, watermelon and bell peppers, with some crops having as many as six applications per year.

The EPA says the chemical poses a risk to aquatic invertebrates and it persistent in the environment. Studies show flubendiamide breaks down into a more highly toxic material that is harmful to species that are an important part of aquatic food chains, especially for fish.

Because of this, the EPA concluded that continued use of the product would result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

Last month the agency asked the two manufacturers to voluntarily pull their flubendiamide products off the market. Bayer said it would seek a review of the product’s registration in an administrative law hearing.

Flubendiamide is the active ingredient in Bayer’s Belt pesticide. Bayer says the EPA’s methodology is flawed and says water monitoring studies have shown residues of flubendiamide and its metabolite are well within safe levels established for aquatic invertebrates.

“We are disappointed the EPA places so much trust on computer modeling and predictive capabilities when real-world monitoring shows no evidence of concern after seven years of safe use,” said Dr. Peter Coody, Bayer vice president of environmental safety.

[buywell3] 20/3/2016 08:28

PUBLIC RELEASE: 18-MAR-2016

..EPA says new technologies will better protect human health and reduce costs..


If some of the readers of this thread are surprised that Cyprotex is about to announce a set of very good results for 2015.

You shouldn't be.

A sea change is happening in several industries at the same time.

In the USA , The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is having to take action on thousands of chemicals that are now in use in not only foods, sweets and drinks , pharmaceutical drugs and cosmetics, but also in household products , chemical products , and agricultural products including pesticides and insecticides.

The EPA is having to take action because the evidence of damage is mounting.

Have you wondered for instance where all the bees have gone or why you don't see so many nice birds ( not sparrows) in your garden ?

Insecticides are killing them.

And it isn't just bees ... such chemicals are getting into the ground water , lakes and ponds , streams and rivers.

Smaller crustaceans are being affected ... then the fish that eat them , then us.

Toxins are consumed and finish in the hosts liver ... where they stay ... and build up ... to be consumed by the next in the food chain.












PUBLIC RELEASE: 18-MAR-2016

Physicians Committee applauds EPA decision to reduce animal use in pesticides testing

EPA says new technologies will better protect human health and reduce costs

PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE


On March 17, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in a letter to stakeholders from the Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs that to "better ensure protection of human health ... its immediate goal is to significantly reduce the use of animals" in pesticides testing requirements collectively called the "6-pack."

The 6-pack includes three acute lethal dose oral, inhalation, and dermal toxicity tests. These tests are considered poisoning tests which assess the dose at which 50 percent of the animals in the test are killed by the test chemical. Also included are the Draize eye and skin irritation tests, and skin sensitization.

Understanding the potential effects of chemicals on humans for these serious effects is important to protecting workers and the public, and it is essential that regulatory requirements keep pace with scientific progress. Alternative methods can save time and resources and often use human tissues, offering more accurate predictions of human toxicity.

The EPA letter accompanies the finalization of guidance outlining a process to evaluate and implement alternative test methods, the release of a draft policy to waive the acute dermal toxicity tests for formulated pesticide products, and the initiation of several data analyses which will support the reduction or replacement of other 6-pack tests.

"We support EPA's efforts to replace these animal tests with methods which are more relevant to human toxicity and more humane," says Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., director of regulatory testing issues for the Physicians Committee. "Waiving the Dermal LD50 is an excellent way to kick off this initiative and will save around 3,000 animals each year. We applaud registrants who have proactively facilitated this project and encourage all registrants to support these efforts and submit internal data which would fortify and hasten EPA's analyses."

The Physicians Committee has been a driving force in the stakeholder process described by the letter, which includes EPA, nonprofit, industry, and test-method developers working cooperatively to accomplish the goal of remaking the 6-pack.

[buywell3] 20/3/2016 07:26

Another country joins those banning animal use in the Cosmetics Industry and the pace of change to adopt more modern in-vitro assays based upon human living cells ramps up.



(Australia, then Canada look like being next as bans are in the pipeline , with the USA to follow )







After BREXIT .... ( I will vote to leave the EU )

Great Britain and perhaps England Wales and Scotland can make similar bans like the Swiss just have.

A united kingdom we are not .... as the Scots have recently proved








Switzerland commits to animal testing ban following Green Party motion

March 11, 2016



Switzerland commits to animal testing ban following Green Party motion

The Swiss government has announced plans to commit to ban the sale of cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals, news which follows a motion introduced by Green Party parliamentarian Maya Graf.

Graf called on the government to end animal testing in cosmetics manufacturing, and, if passed, would make Switzerland the 35th country to take legal action to stem the trade of animal tested consumer products. The news follows the Humane Society International’s global #BeCrueltyFreeCampaign, launched in 2012, which worked closely with Switzerland to change its animal testing policy.

Claire Mansfield, HSI’s #BeCrueltyFree campaign director, said, “It’s great news that Switzerland has joined the growing list of countries that have committed to #BeCrueltyFree by abolishing the sale of cruel cosmetics. This is one more example of the growing momentum to end cosmetics cruelty around the world once and for all. We congratulate MP Graf for raising this important issue in Parliament, and the Swiss government for committing to take action.”

Other countries to have implemented full or partial bans on animal testing in cosmetics include the European Union, Norway, Israel, India, New Zealand, Turkey, South Korea and several states in Brazil.

[buywell3] 20/3/2016 07:13

Well done India , and an important step in the right direction to stop the use of animals in the pre-clinical testing of new drug compounds in other countries.

This is a first in the Pharmaceutical Industry regarding a ban on the use of animals , the Cosmetics Industry has set the bar and is raising it higher each month as more countries ban animal use within that industry.











...... Animal rights activists cheer ban on repeat drug trials .....


NEW DELHI, MARCH 18:
It’s a good day for guinea pigs and other members of the animal kingdom as India will now not subject them to repeat testing of drugs meant for mammals of the homo sapiens species.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has amended the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules to ban animal testing of drugs that have already been tested in another country that is part of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Data submitted
The amendment to Schedule Y of the Rule says, “Where the data on animal toxicity as per the specifications of Appendix III have been submitted and the same has been considered by the regulatory authority of the country, which had earlier approved the drug, the animal toxicity studies shall not be required to be conducted in India except in cases where there are specific concerns recorded in writing.”

The draft rules had been moved on January 6 and were finalised on March 16.

The move, which has earned cheer from animal rights activists, aims at preventing both economic and time loss from duplicated testing.

Dipti Kapoor, Research Associate, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, said, “This also enables drug companies to make medicines more easily available and also saves money since they don’t have to conduct tests to achieve data that is already available.”

This move, which is applicable only for drugs that have already been tested in countries whose regulatory requirements are in line with India’s, falls under the OECD decision of Mutual Acceptance of Data.

Gauri Maulekhi, Humane Society International (India), Consultant and a trustee at People for Animals, said, “The new amendment will not only save thousands of animals every year from being subjected to redundant animal testing, it also marks the beginning of a potential new era of sophisticated animal testing alternatives in India.”

However, animals would continue to be subjected to testing for new drugs being developed in India. But, there is hope that these, too, will come to an end soon as the Centre is looking at alternatives available.

Second win
This is the second victory for animal rights activists in as many years.

In January 2014, the Centre had amended the Drugs and Cosmetics Rule to ban animal testing of cosmetics as well, bringing India’s regulation on cosmetics at par with the European standards which had made animal testing of cosmetics illegal in 2013.

[buywell2] 17/3/2016 05:39

Human Stem Cell-Derived Neurons for Neuronal Activity Assessment
Neuronal Toxicity Assessment

Posted 16th March 2016 by Cyprotex

Attrition due to neurotoxicity is a significant problem in drug discovery. Part of the problem lies in the fact that there aren’t any effective preclinical human neurotoxicity models on the market yet.

Certain ion channel and receptor activity assays can predict some seizure potential, but they may not pick up reactions that are incited by multiple targets. This is a gap we have been trying to fill by developing eCiphr®Neuro, an MEA-based assay that measures neuronal electrophysiological response. The assay has been successful using rat cortical neurons, but with the goal of providing an assay that is more physiologically relevant to the human condition, we partnered with PhoenixSongs Biologicals to explore the utility of human neural stem cells (NSCs).

After treatment with a variety of GABAA antagonists at a range of predetermined time points, the cultures were monitored using the Axion BioSystems Maestro microelectrode array instrument. The NSC-derived cultures, which contain both neurons and astrocytes, showed patterns of change similar to rat cortical neurons. Further work is required and underway to improve the culturing process, as it currently takes about eight weeks to differentiate and mature the neurons, but the results indicate that development of an in vitro assay that predicts human neurotoxicity is both possible and, more importantly, practical.

Cyprotex presented this research as a poster presentation with PhoenixSongs Biologicals at SOT ToxExpo 2016.






Cyprotex seem to be on the cusp of pulling off a first in the area of neurotoxicity using human brain cells.

This is a potential major development. As at present

''Attrition due to neurotoxicity is a significant problem in drug discovery. Part of the problem lies in the fact that there aren’t any effective preclinical human neurotoxicity models on the market yet. ''

Such an assay outlined below if it can in some way be IP protected has the potential to be a step game changer.

If it can't , it can still earn Cyprotex a load of orders.

Note the executive vice president link to Pfizer.


My research shows that the quantifiable measurement of human brain damage caused by new drug compounds , or by chemicals contained in food and drinks , is in its infancy.

This is a MASSIVE untapped and under resourced area

The stipulated use of animals , one rodent one non rodent , stipulated by the FDA for toxicity testing clearly demonstrates the hole in the pre-clinical regulatory process. check out option 1 in link below





Hence I predict more drugs and foods/drinks will be withdrawn in coming years due to induced human brain damage , which to date has been very difficult to detect as much of it has been cumulative over many years.

I also predict that many such compounds , some of which might well be artificial sweetners for example , will be found to be resonsible for brain damage which has been thought to be/attributed to, dementia or Alzheimer's at the present moment.

Terrible is it not , that much of what one pops into ones mouth on a daily basis could in fact be doing untold damage. But because these compounds are not tested properly .... NOBODY KNOWS.








I also note yet more new positions being advertised at Cyprotex Watertown, some very senior.


2016 looks set to be an interesting year.

[p1nkfish] 14/3/2016 23:10

Can't remember if they have scheduled a specific date this time but normally before 3rd week of April. More often than not before end of March.

[dan_trader2] 14/3/2016 17:21

Are we expecting the results soon?

[buywell2] 10/3/2016 22:22

For a small cap company Cyprotex are getting themselves organised to meet the changing environment that is coming about due to regulatory changes occurring and in the pipeline

This latest initiative should help expand Cyprotex services further into the Chemical and Cosmetics industries , building upon the IP gained by the USA CeeTox acquisition.

One might go so far as the are punching well above their weight .... and mixing it with the big boys.

The modernization of the company's offerings in terms of human cellular based assays and services, together with the shift in focus to industries other than the traditional Pharma ..... seems now to be paying off.


Results for 2015 , to be published within days , should also I hope contain guidance as to aspirations for an increase in turnover for 2016.

I hope for a 15% increase in turnover .... and of course , more than that in profits.






Cyprotex PLC Launch of New Chemical and Cosmetics Testing Guide

09/03/2016 7:01am

RNS

Launch of New Chemical and Cosmetics Testing Guide

Cyprotex PLC (AIM:CRX), a specialist ADME-Tox and Bioscience Contract Research Organisation, today announces the launch of their new 'Chemical and Cosmetics Testing' guide. The guide is focused in the field of chemical (including pesticides and industrial chemicals) and cosmetics testing and covers an overview of the US and EU legislation/guidance, as well as chapters on Integrated Testing Approaches, Skin Testing, Ocular Testing, Mutagenicity/Genotoxicity Testing and Endocrine Disruption Testing.

Cyprotex has considerable expertise in this field since its acquisition of the business and assets of CeeTox, Inc in January 2014. This facility, which now forms part of the subsidiary Cyprotex US, LLC, is based in Kalamazoo in Michigan in the USA. It specialises in chemical and cosmetic testing approaches and can perform these studies under Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), which can be a requirement when submitting the data to the regulatory authorities.

Sharing of knowledge and experience is a key part of Cyprotex's social responsibility policy. The new 'Chemical and Cosmetics Testing' guide complements Cyprotex's existing 'Everything you need to know about ADME', 'DDI Regulatory Guidance' and 'Mechanisms of Drug-Induced Toxicity' guides. The guides, which are extremely popular with customers, academic institutions and investors alike, provide a valuable resource for scientists in a range of disciplines who want to have an up-to-date overview of the current legislation and testing methods.

Anthony Baxter PhD, Chief Executive Officer of Cyprotex, commented:

'The chemical and cosmetics industries are undergoing considerable change. This has been led by the European Cosmetics Directive which, in 2013, enforced a complete ban on animal testing for finished cosmetic products and ingredients. The introduction of REACH (an EU Regulation concerning the risks from chemicals) in 2007 has also meant that alternative non-animal methods are being encouraged to reduce the impact on animal testing requirements. Through our experience in in vitro testing approaches, we can assist our customers in meeting these changes in legislation and help to reduce the burden on animal testing.'

[buywell2] 08/3/2016 21:54

............... The State of Big Pharma today in 2016 .................


Cancer drugs are the most expensive of them all at around $200,000 per patient per year.

There is no cure for cancer , diabetes (type 1 ) or Alzheimer's to name but 3 diseases.

However it has now been found that many different subsets of breast cancers exist ,



These different subsets are caused by an individuals genetic mutations.

Thus it is not a far stretch to believe that as molecular diagnostics , DNA testing and sequencing improves and gets better with ever better machines and technology .... that many subsets of other cancers will be identified. eg recently



It follows that in the future different cancer drug compounds will be made to treat the different subset types.

However

The cost of making a new drug is hitting around $5 Billion according to Forbes



Plus the time taken can be up to 15 years

Plus many drugs get withdrawn after FDA approval due to toxicity issues

Then litigation kicks in and the costs today run due to class actions at around $1 to $2 Billions plus the wasted development costs and bad PR costs

Even a BIG Pharma could not stand 2 such disasters within 12 month period I would suggest.

So as it stands the FDA rules re the use of 2 animal types , one rodent one not, for toxicity testing , lasting around 3 months max ,


These outdated regulations have existed for over half a century could result in some BIG names getting into trouble as things stand.

Genetic human mutations in cancers .... means animal use is a complete and utter waste of time

[buywell3] 04/3/2016 00:38

Another new vacancy to add to the rest , I find interesting the top one, head of project management



As with the other vacancies this looks like it is required to meet an expanding workload.


Chartwise the share price has retraced a bit after a very good 2015 , however when the results are released the retrace could be reversed.

A P/E of around 25 for a small cap growth company involved in the Pharma Biotech sector showing a track record of over 5 years of turnover growth and profit making with expectations of bigger profits to come does not look demanding.











The move into Toxicology gained by the acquisition of US company Apredica was well timed



''toxicity the largest reason for clinical trial failures, accounting for 43% of all Phase I failures''



I see the CEO has re written his message .....

[mrphil] 29/2/2016 17:26

I know we should be used to it with this share but that's a big one day drop on no news!

[husbod] 23/2/2016 16:04

Could we have a half decent buy at the close or tomorrow?

[buywell2] 14/2/2016 23:03

Looks like Cyprotex are in for a busy year



Current Positions

Technician - Watertown, MA

Associate Scientist I - in vitro Toxicology (1 - 2 Positions) - BioHub, Alderley Park, UK

Associate Scientist - Watertown, MA

Post-Doctoral Researcher for H2020 EU-ToxRisk project - BioHub, Alderley Park, UK

Senior Scientist/Study Manager; in vitro Toxicology and Biological Screening - Watertown, MA

Senior Scientist-DMPK - Watertown, MA

Associate Scientist I/II (Analytical ADME) - Macclesfield, UK

Scientist or Senior Scientist (dependent on experience) - Macclesfield, UK





Re the latest RNS

' 'The comprehensive in vitro proarrhythmia assay (CiPA) initiative is changing the landscape of preclinical drug development by providing a more complete and accurate assessment of potential drug effects on cardiac risk.

Assessing multiple ion channels (not just a cloned fragment of one) in a human tissue (not an immortalized cell line) will place greater emphasis on the accurate prediction of proarrhythmic drug effects. Prior to IND filing (specifically in drug discovery or in early development), CIPA is expected to reduce unwarranted drug discovery attrition, improve accuracy in predicting cardiac risk and ultimately move forward better drugs that are also safe to benefit patients.

Implementation of the initiative by the FDA is due in 2016. ''

[buywell2] 11/2/2016 01:05

Cytocentrics CEO: San Antonio to get big boost from new deal

Feb 10, 2016, 2:39pm CST



A London-based firm, Cyprotex Plc, has reached out to one of San Antonio’s newest biotech companies, striking a deal with Cytocentrics that could have a far-reaching impact on the Alamo City.

Under the new agreement, Cyprotex (AIM:CRX), an international bioscience contract research organization, will tap into Cytocentrics capabilities in the in vitro ion channel screening market. The Alamo City company, which relocated here from Rostock, Germany, in 2015, will provide Cyprotex with equipment, cell lines, expertise and training.

Cytocentrics CEO James Garvin has high hopes for a new collaborative deal with London-based Cyprotex.


Cyprotex officials said Cytocentrics’ team is recognized globally as ion channel specialists and the collaborative agreement will allow the company to provide a panel of different ion channel assays from its US site near Boston.

“Our team has been doing work for Cyprotex for some time and it was an evolution of that relationship,” said Cytocentrics CEO James Garvin when asked what led to the deal with the British company.

A US consortium called CiPA, or Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrythmia Assay, is currently evaluating a new paradigm for regulatory cardiac safety testing using in silico and in vitro methods. The in vitro methods currently being evaluated include the measurements of single ion channels and integrated ion channel measurements in human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes.

Cyprotex is an active member of CiPA, which is co-sponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Cytocentrics’ deal with Cyprotex could have a profound impact on the San Antonio company and on the Alamo City’s growing bioscience industry.

“It means a great deal,” said Garvin about the collaborative agreement. “Cyprotex is one of the most well-regarded and highly respected names in the (industry). We anticipate a great deal of business coming through them, as well as additional business coming to us as a result of this new relationship.”

Garvin said he expects that Cyprotex also will gain additional business as a result of its work with Cytocentrics. The introduction of the new ion channel services will not only allow Cyprotex to offer cardiac safety testing but will also allow screening for potential biological effects on ion channels, extending the company’s bioscience capabilities.

The bigger payoff for San Antonio may be greater global exposure for its bioscience industry.

“People will take notice of this deal and take notice that we are in San Antonio,” Garvin said. “That only helps the city’s profile, and we love for San Antonio to be noticed.”

[buywell2] 10/2/2016 23:28

Looks good and should enable Cyprotex to further expand and commercialize the Cipa initiative and 1M contract throughout the EU for starters and into the USA as the Cyprotex tests become the accepted norm.

Also expands the Cyprotex BioSciences Division offerings






10 February 2016


Strategic partnering deal signed with Cytocentrics to offer a full package of in vitro ion channel services

Cyprotex PLC (AIM:CRX), a specialist ADME-Tox and Bioscience Contract Research Organisation, today announces the signing of a strategic partnering deal with world leading ion channel specialists, Cytocentrics, Inc, to extend Cyprotex's capabilities in the in vitro ion channel screening market. As part of the agreement, Cytocentrics will provide equipment, cell lines, expertise and training to allow Cyprotex to provide a panel of different ion channel assays from its Watertown site, near Boston in the USA.

A consortium in the USA known as CiPA (Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrythmia Assay) is currently evaluating a new paradigm for regulatory cardiac safety testing using in silico and in vitro methods. CiPA is co-sponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium (CSRC), the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The in vitro methods currently being evaluated include single ion channels measurements, and integrated ion channel measurements in human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. Cyprotex is an active member of CiPA and plays a vital role in the development and validation of the human stem-cell derived cardiomyocyte assays using microelectrode array. This is an area in which Cyprotex has considerable expertise being the first company to launch this technology onto the market as a higher throughput platform via its eCiphr(R) Cardio service. The Cytocentrics agreement will complement existing technology already provided by Cyprotex by allowing Cyprotex to offer a panel of single ion channel measurements. This will enable Cyprotex to offer a fully comprehensive package of in vitro cardiac safety services which focus on key testing methods currently being addressed within the CiPA initiative.

The introduction of the new ion channel services will not only allow Cyprotex to offer cardiac safety testing but will also allow screening for potential biological effects on ion channels and so will extend Cyprotex's bioscience capabilities. The new facility, anticipated to be operational in H1 2016, is expected to contribute to the Company's performance from H2 2016 in line with current market expectations. The new services will utilise Cytocentrics CytoPatch(TM) 4 instruments and stably transfected cell lines. The CytoPatch(TM) 4 is an automated patch clamp system which uses a quartz glass pipette analogous to manual patch clamp and allows robust gigaseal recordings.

Anthony Baxter PhD, Chief Executive Officer of Cyprotex, comments on the agreement, 'Regulatory cardiac safety testing for new pharmaceuticals is expected to change in the near future with a greater focus on in vitro and in silico methods. Cyprotex is well placed to address this trend and will have the capability to offer a comprehensive package of in vitro cardiac services through its existing offerings and through our new partnership with Cytocentrics.'

[timtom2] 10/2/2016 07:24

Very pleased to see this partnership.

12-18 months from now I think we will most ceratiny be the 1 stop shop and a path will be beaten to CRX's door.

Why devleop all your own internal tests from multiple sources when you can go to 1 place for them all, efficiently.