Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Avacta LSE:AVCT London Ordinary Share GB00BYYW9G87 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 67.00p 66.00p 68.00p 67.00p 67.00p 67.00p 1,852 08:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 2.7 -7.9 -9.3 - 45.82

Avacta Share Discussion Threads

Showing 3526 to 3549 of 3550 messages
Chat Pages: 142  141  140  139  138  137  136  135  134  133  132  131  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
31/12/2017
10:28
I agree with Dec2000's points below but manufacturing to GMP standards is a whole new ball game from making small proteins for lab use. Assuming affimers can be made to meet the regulatory requirements for human trials, then the issue becomes how they can be differentiated from alternative for immuno-oncology trials. Like most small proteins, half-life can be extended by turning them into single-chain antibody-like proteins to extend half life by reducing renal clearance. Affimers could then be modified further to make them multimers to different binding sites. You then end up with something looking similar to bispecific single chain antibody but have made the manufacturing process more complex. However, the key issue is will these therapeutic proteins demonstrate improved properties over the competition that biotechgeek refers to? For example, will they show better penetration into solid tumours? Can they "pull" T-cells deeper into the tumour. Very exciting if they can but this will require a lot of cash to prove these theoretical benefits. Certainly worth watching this technology evolve to see how it will complete with the more established players.
derekj1
31/12/2017
10:27
I agree with Dec2000's points below but manufacturing to GMP standards is a whole new ball game from making small proteins for lab use. Assuming affimers can be made to meet the regulatory requirements for human trials, then the issue becomes how they can be differentiated from alternative for immuno-oncology trials. Like most small proteins, half-life can be extended by turning them into single-chain antibody-like proteins to extend half life by reducing renal clearance. Affimers could then be modified further to make them multimers to different binding sites. You then end up with something looking similar to bispecific single chain antibody but have made the manufacturing process more complex. However, the key issue is will these therapeutic proteins demonstrate improved properties over the competition that biotechgeek refers to? For example, will they show better penetration into solid tumours? Can they "pull" T-cells deeper into the tumour. Very exciting if they can but this will require a lot of cash to prove these theoretical benefits. Certainly worth watching this technology evolve to see how it will complete with the more established players.
derekj1
25/12/2017
08:12
Looking to invest in biotech and have enjoyed this thread. Typically for the sector, they have seem to have a technology that works but are struggling to commercialise it. Looks to early stage for me, as I like to see serious revenues coming in or at least the potential of them. Unusually, Avacta see to be holding back from even making "biodollars" forecasts. Looks like an early stage academic spinout that has become public too early. I'll keep looking though as there should be some good discounts at the next fundraise.
reester
11/12/2017
11:06
Firstly thanks to biotechgeek for his post which hopefully can start a good conversation. And of course his conclusion that the market will decide is also absolutely correct. He approaches the problem from the point of view of production.. and points out that the three main ways of producing affinity ligands are through synthetic chemistry, phage display and in vivo and goes on to point out that Avacta have “simply” made phage display work with a particular type of protein and they have chosen one that is particularly robust. In my belief this is accurate but also undersells what Avacta have achieved and what they are attempting to achieve. In my belief the production issue is not the most important concern.. what is of real significance is what Avacta are hoping to achieve through the use of this technology. The usefulness of any affinity ligand depends partly on the ligand and also what it is attached to and also what you are trying to use it for. In other words there are horses for courses. Indeed that is what Avacta have said : they are not interested in displacing the role of antibodies generally rather finding some alternatives which work better than antibodies in certain circumstances and they have effectively segmented their market into two : diagnostics and research reagents (the so called RxDx market) and the therapeutics market (the Tx market) . In the RxDx market there is massive competition but there are some advantages that Affimers can bring including ease of developing affinity ligands, small molecular size and stability as well as exquisite sensitivity. Of course they compete against phage-display produced antibodies and others, but they do have advantages themselves and other protein scaffolds have not entered the RxDx territory. The proof of this particular pudding does lie in the eating, but they are generating lots of sales leads and have indeed signed a deal with a top 3 diagnostics company… so it can’t be all bad! The question is - can they carve out for themselves a sensibly sized slice of this particular market? With regard to therapeutics, they have deliberately gone for a differentiated strategy which builds on the differences and advantages of Affimers which seems to me to be reasonable. They are using the ability of Affimers to link with themselves to make multimeric molecules which have significant potential uses as T cell recruiters and combination therapies (which might be more therapeutically effective and also more cost effective), they are using the stability of the cystatin molecule to develop drug conjugates with Glythera (also an IP company) which effectively add, say, a poison to the Affimer molecule to be able to selectively kill unwanted cells such as cancer cells; and they are using the simplicity of the cystatin protein and its ease of expression in cells in gene therapy approaches with Moderna. That sounds to me like a sensible approach and not to be denigrated. Whether it works or not of course is the question and why the shares are currently lowly rated. If any of the above are proved to work then the share price will be much higher. As biotechgeek says : the market will decide.
dec2000
10/12/2017
19:43
Tradernick is spot on and my point is that the likes of Finncap won't be able to raise the required capital. The share price reflects that the market is not convinced. Sadly the take up for Affimers so far has been disappointing and positive news flow in now critical.
lantanatony
10/12/2017
05:31
This is always the issue with biotechs: should they go for the more lucrative but much riskier therapeutic option or try and trade as a more conventional business. The problem is that on AIM is hard to be all things to different investors. Most successful companies on AIM, unlike NASDAQ, choose on or the other. This thread is a typical example of some investors who are expecting revenues and profits and others who want to cure cancer. This company is reaching out to both types of investor. For those who want to cure cancer, which is a noble objective, the key issue is will this particular approach work? I looks like there are literally thousands of competing immuno-oncology products in clinical development. A number of products are already on the market. By the time Avacta gets into the clinic, there will be even more. When you are in the clinic or the product is approved, it doesn't matter whether the product is an small molecule, antibody or affimer. It's the clinical data that counts - does it shrink the tumour or destroy it and stop it spreading? Many products can have effects on tumours in mice but it only with human clinical data that value will be recognised. Two years to phase 1 and then phase 2 and a lot of cash later you'll have your answer. The question is can you raise enough cash on AIM to get there? Most companies don't.
tradernick1
03/12/2017
07:21
Been reading this debate and thought I'd chip in. There are many different ways of making affinity ligands, the main ones are: synthetic chemistry (e.g. MIPs), phage display (e.g. Iontas)and in vivo (e.g. CRB). They all have their pros and cons and these basic methods can be combined in certain circumstances. Synthetic chemistry can make a much greater variety of compounds (most drugs and many diagnostics are made this way), as you are not limited by 23 the amino acids that make up proteins. Proteins can be made in bacteria or mammalian cells and this is more efficient that chemical synthesis. For example, human insulin for diabetics is made this way. Antibodies are just a type of protein that have a common backbone and are made in similar way to other proteins. Phage display can be used to make proteins, including antibodies, but the immune systems of animals only make antibodies. Most mammals make large antibodies but camels and lamas make smaller ones, as do sharks. All of these different technologies have been commercialised now. Animals can make antibodies to very small amounts of an impure antigen, whereas phage display typically requires larger amounts of pure protein. This can delay starting the phage display process, which is often why animals immune systems produce good results faster. Phage display was developed back in the 1990s and depends on what in available in the library and how many affinity maturation steps are required. It can be fast, it can be slow or it can fail all together. All Avacta have done is to get phage display to work with a particular type of protein, which is not hard. It seems that their man USP is that they are using a lysosomal protein as the starting point, which means it is more biochemically robust, as the lysosome is where proteins are degraded. To live there you have to be tough to survive! The downside for therapeutic applications is that lysomal proteins can be immunogenic in the human host, as they are rarely seen by the hosts immune system. So, "affimers", which is trademark, have their place in the market and the market will decide if they want to buy them in significant numbers. Looks like the jury is still out commercially: Avacta can make affimers but do others want to buy them at scale?
biotechgeek
01/12/2017
10:57
Looks like you won't have to wait long then.
lantanatony
01/12/2017
10:28
Im a buyer at 60
escapetohome
30/11/2017
12:54
At the current rate of decline Avacta will be around 60 pence next week. Somewhat below the Finncap prediction of £2! Meanwhile there have been a number of high profile presentations this year but no positive feedback from the company regarding these presentations How did the Covance presentation go for example? Without any feedback, No wonder the market has turned bearish on Avacta.
lantanatony
27/11/2017
15:14
Pugugly...In my opinion, potentially a serious competitor in terms of diagnostics and diagnostic reagents, but probably not from a therapeutic perspective. Recall, reagents were going to be a relatively easy win/gain early traction...... And absolutely no immune response is required and no animals are used in the manufacture of MIPs.
wan
27/11/2017
14:58
that's absolutely how I read it ... another alternative. Gaining acceptance and traction may be impossible for ANY firm, as while they are standing still (relatively speaking) to do so, new tech becomes available or shows promise in a science lab somewhere.
the drewster
27/11/2017
13:51
wan: Thanks for that - If I read correctly could potentially provide very serious or superior competition to Avacta - or have I read wrongly ?
pugugly
27/11/2017
08:14
Something that I have been keeping an eye on - 21st November 2017 Breakthrough Discovery In Diagnostic Tools That Can Replace Antibodies In a newly released article “A comparison of the performance of molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles for small molecule targets and antibodies in the ELISA format” the researchers successfully demonstrated that polymer nanoparticles produced by the molecular imprinting technique (MIP nanoparticles) can bind to the target molecule with the same or higher affinity and specificity than widely used commercially available antibodies and against challenging targets. Additionally, their ease of manufacture, short lead time, high affinity and the lack of requirement for cold chain logistics make them an attractive alternative to traditional antibodies for use in immunoassays. The robust nature of MIP nanoparticles makes them ideal reagents for a wide range of applications including point-of-care diagnostics and in field based testing. They can withstand harsh environments, such as extremes of pH and temperature, seawater and can even function in organic solvents. Full article - https://tinyurl.com/molecular-imprinting
wan
20/11/2017
12:34
You paraphrase ... Alastair said if the events weren't supported, they'd obviously have to consider whether to run them in the future. I think your negative view (of either the broker or the company) is entirely up to you, and that you express it means that it is quite possibly a view shared by others. Everything helps to build a fuller picture. PS - I don't think for one minute Avacta could "go it alone" on a therapeutic and will simply get to a compelling point before taking on a joint venture (the terms of which will define how golden the Goose's eggs actually are)
the drewster
20/11/2017
11:48
Here is a fact for you ,when FinnCap were appointed Avacta were around a £1 ! Here's another one Mr Smith told The Drewster that these private shareholder events may be a waist of time before my posting! I am not surprised FinnCap are backtracking about their involvement in the event. It is still my view that neither FinnCap and or Avacta did enough to get people to the event to promote the company. Therapeutics is a big boy's game,therefore in my opinion that requires a big boy's Broker,that's prepared to support the shares.
lantanatony
20/11/2017
11:00
Iantanatony - you really should check your facts before posting otherwise this bulletin board has zero value, or less. I have checked my facts. This was not a Finncap event. Finncap provided a venue to allow Avacta to give private investors who responded to an RNS invitation the same preliminary results presentation that institutional investors and analysts got a couple of weeks ago. I am sure small numbers were expected. As private shareholders we complain when we don't get the same treatment as institutions, and in a very technical business its really useful to have someone talk through the presentations rather than just reading them ourselves. Its a shame that only three people could make it, or be bothered to make it, but I doubt many more were expected as only private investors were invited and they would have booked a bigger venue if they expected more than a handful. Thanks Drewster for providing useful feedback. That's what this bulletin board should be used for. At a recent event Alastair told me that Finncap are doing a very good job and the company has presented to a large number of new fund managers some of whom may well be part of that 85%, just not with a big enough holding to be disclosed. Most institutions will wait and watch for quite a while before getting involved. Not sure what you have against Finncap but its not helpful here and its way to early to judge. I understand that there will be a capital markets day in the New Year but those are for the institutions so private investors will miss out. All the more reason to be grateful when a small company makes a little effort to treat private investors properly. Iantanatony - I doubt whether small private shareholders will be offered the same courtesy by Avacta again if this is the thanks they get - so well done for that. Drewster is spot on – “pharma is slow. If you believe, then keep on buying, if you don't, then don't”.
e1nstein
17/11/2017
09:20
Agree that both Avacta and FinnCap should be doing more to stimulate interest ... either that or not paying to put on such events (time after the AGM would suffice for many). I work part time in medical research these days, and it's fair to say that I'm genuinely excited (as a human being) at some of the things they are doing, whether I as a shareholder get to share in the spoils when they succeed, one can only hope so.
the drewster
17/11/2017
09:00
Yup agreed - thanks for the meeting feedback, i havent yet read but will do so.
escapetohome
17/11/2017
08:57
Pharma is ALWAYS slow. For many PIs it's too slow. Potential rewards remain truly staggering, so I'm staying put. If you want stocks that move every day, pharma isn't really where you should be playing. Up to 2017, just about every scientific objective to de-risk the platform has been achieved, yet the market doesn't value any of it. When it finally happens, I think it will be spectacular, but the "when" bit is for crystal ball gazers only. If you believe, then keep on buying, if you don't, then don't.
the drewster
17/11/2017
08:56
Drewster, Thanks for your feedback, but you can't really defend Finncap or Avacta for the low turnout at the presentation. If Finncap could only get three to their own event they are simply not promoting the company and the Avacta management should do something about that. A group of students could get more than that to a startup meeting! The 85% of institutional investors you refer to were not brought in by Finncap and there is a seller out there. Was that discussed?
lantanatony
17/11/2017
08:05
There aren't that many PIs as 85% plus of the shares live with institutions. We actually discussed the merit of organising such a meeting when so few attended - selfishly, it was great, as I got to ask every question I had, and discussed the science in some detail, but Alastair while keen to give PIs the same briefing as the IIs, agreed that if the events didn't attract any interest, there was little point organising them - we have been warned!
the drewster
17/11/2017
04:30
Apologies ,my previous post should have read....any broker that can't get more than three people to an event in London for one of its clients must have lost interest. (Must get some glasses)
lantanatony
16/11/2017
21:29
I seriously don't wish to gloat but if Finncap can only get three people to a much publicised event,Then all of us must question their merit. They became Avacta's brokers when the shares were over a pound. Since then their performance has been questionable. But any broker that can't get more than three people to a event in London for one pf its clints must have lost interest. Avacta need to get a grip!
lantanatony
Chat Pages: 142  141  140  139  138  137  136  135  134  133  132  131  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:33 V: D:20180118 02:12:29