1/ Reducing technical bias during genetic analysis is a major challenge for molecular #diagnostics. By involving #DNA reference sequences, researchers can compare theoretical and actual test results in hopes of improving test sensitivity.
2/ However, contemporary references have the capacity to contaminate and confound analysis, making it challenging to continue optimizing test accuracy beyond a certain limit. A recent study exploited a common chemical characteristic called ‘chirality’ to build a new class of...
3/ ...synthetic, internal references for sequencing assays. #Chiral molecular are distinct from their mirror image—similar to how one’s hands, though perfect reflections, cannot be superimposed. Implementing these chiral sequences (sequins), the researchers were able to...
4/ ...increase test accuracy across a wide variety of applications—including oncology. Aligning true DNA and sequins allowed for the construction of bioinformatic filters that separated high and low-confidence data at the end of an NGS workflow.
5/ Should they be integrated into modern tests, sequins should continue tacking 9’s onto the percentage sensitivity of next-generation diagnostics.
>90% of Americans over 45 have seen a Cologuard ad this week.
Fewer know of the test's parent company, Exact Sciences (EXAS), whose tests also guide care for the majority of early-stage breast cancer patients in the US.
Today, we released a 5-year model + article on Exact.
Our (base case) 2027 price target is $140 ($49 today). To get there, here's what we believe has to happen:
1. Exact's core business (Cologuard + Oncotype DX) grows on avg. >15% per year thru 2027, reaching $4B.
2. Exact achieves EBITDA positivity in the '23/'24 timeframe.
What we believe must happen (Cont.):
3. Exact uses its earnings to reinvest in its burgeoning pipeline, service its outstanding debt, and maintain its capital equipment.
4. Exact's pipeline, in aggregate, hits >$1B revenue by the end of 2027.
Now that @Quantum_Si has given us a peek under the hood of its protein #sequencing platform (Platinum), we can begin comparing actual results to theory.
A few months ago, I shared this paper that gave a theoretical framework for protein sequencing: pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac…
The author simulated how different factors, such as the # of readable amino acids (AAs) and the read length, would affect a protein sequencer's ability to unambiguously detect the 20,000 canonical human proteins in our bodies.
That chart is attached below.
I've marked in green where QSI currently stacks up. Based on its recent pre-print (linked below), Platinum can directly read seven (7) amino acids (F, Y, W, L, I, V, and R) with peptide reads that seem to max out around 20 AAs.
A recent publication by Dennis Lo et al applied long-read sequencing (LRS) in the prenatal screening (#NIPT) setting. It's a rather unorthodox technology/application pairing, and it's got me scratching my head a bit.
For context, earlier this year, Lo et al published a convolutional neural network ("the HK model") that enabled PacBio LRS devices to read methylation (5mC) across the entire genome with very high fidelity. This is important later.
@MJLBio@Sanctuary_Bio@Biohazard3737 Sure! I realize I was being a little vague with those statements. Generally, I think you're correct in your interpretation of the importance of P2 (great $/GB, but at a smaller scale) as well as duplex sequencing.
Something that is important to recognize, though ...
@MJLBio@Sanctuary_Bio@Biohazard3737 ... is how product deployment works differently between PacBio and Nanopore, which is partly an artefact of culture and of time in the public markets, in the public markets. I'm not advocating for one over the other with my next statements.
@MJLBio@Sanctuary_Bio@Biohazard3737 PacBio has been a public company for a long time. While the management has changed much since the failed Illumina merger, the familiarity with how to operate as a public company has not.
PacBio is more secretive and only unveils fully built-out commercial products.
I'd like to share my initial reaction to today's Berkeley Lights report. But first, I need to do some housekeeping. I can't comment on stock movements, share financial projections, or debate fair value.
Generally, I respect anyone who's put this much work into a topic. I won't pretend to have a clean rebuttal to every point. In my experience, beyond the hyperbole and hasty generalizations, there is some truth in these types of reports.
I want to soberly appraise those truths.
Also, I'd invite the subject-matter experts waiting in the wings to build off of this thread, add detail, or share their experiences. Ultimately, we're all after the same thing.
I will start with a few concessions and end with a few counterpoints to today's report: