is getting the IP and rights to a unique antigen where they own the molecular basis of the vaccine. I went over the INO pipeline and they have very strong collaborative ties for their technology. I worked with PIs in the Boston area who electoporetically introduced agents into RBCs to make they give up more oxygen when the got to peripheral sites in need of cellular O2. The idea is being used by Inovio to get the antigen inside the cells to get a better immune response. Their vaccines are pretty broadly arrayed. I am particularly interested in the Hepatitis C vaccine because of a family member.
Anyway, I will be buying in in a couple of weeks based upon the science. Also being a veterinarian, I can see this technology being used for special veterinary cases (at first) and then much more broadly as the technology progresses.
By way of comparing with the competetive company for cervical dysplasia, they use an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes bacteria to accomplish the same thing (intracellular penetration of a molecule) but their objective is to cause deviation of cell metabolism and apoptosis or cell death of the cancer cells because of the altered protein array. I have to read more about this, but the differences are very apparent.
Put the basher on ignore. That is where he belongs. Also beware of eyegiggle. That person permeated the INSM MB for years with blather.
From a business perspective, that is part of the beauty of Inovio. The vaccines that they create are created synthetically, slightly different than what exists in nature. That is why they have been able to patent their vaccines and we don’t have to worry about those patents being made invalid. The Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal late year regarding the ability to patent a gene. Right now companies do that, but if the Supreme Court rules that you cannot patent something that exists in nature, many companies are going to have technologies that are no longer patent protected. I don’t know when they will make their ruling. Inovio’s vaccines will always be patented due to the way they are created. They also are by far the leader in terms of an electroporation patent estate.
The Hep C vaccine itself is not owned and was not created by Inovio, it is their partners. I think they will still get good results, but Inovio is bringing its’ own Hep C vaccine into trials that is better optimized and targets multiple antigens. Sounds like you understand the technology very well, so I suspect you will be joining us. This thing can turn out to be one heck of a ride.
It is the means of getting the protein (antigen) inside the cell. Millisecond electric shocks open pores in cells allowing penetration of the antigen (antibody producing foreign protein). Once inside, the cell directs the mechanism to "throw off the invading foreign protein." Hence an immune response.
This type of immunization is novel and per the slide show, is effective in getting the green marked protein inside the cells. Just like the pneumatic vaccine gun revolutionized certain types of vaccinations, this technology has a lot of uses. Look at the growing list of big name collaborating companies. They (INO) just need to get one vaccine antigen of their own and they will be in the profit mode quickly. I am surprised they are not pursuing SBIR grants to accomplish this task.
One big one that appears not to be on their radar is to license the technology to antiserum production houses (that make diagnostic antisera) and of course, veterinary vaccinations. I would personally suggest they go for PRRS in swine. That disease hampers the swine industry and is a potential "amplifying virus of the future." An amplifying virus is like Simian Hemorrhagic Fever, which kills monkeys in Africa, but if a human eats raw monkey meat from an animal that died of this disease, the virus can amplify (enter into the blood stream of humans) and become Marburg or Ebola virus (human infective mutant forms). Watch the movie "Outbreak" sometime.