Ep. 389 - IgA nephropathy, Overton hearing, reverse mergers' new look

Introduction Everything has fallen into place to shift IGA nephropathy from a neglected rare disease to a drug development priority among biopharma companies, with larger companies such as Biogen, Novartis, Takeda, and Key Med, and smaller companies such as Climb Bio and Jade chasing targets like April Bath and CD38. On the latest Bio Century This Week podcast, we check in on the state of play in IGA nephropathy. Plus, we check in on two stories we touched on last week. What went down at the confirmation hearing for FDA commissioner nominee Heidi Overton and reverse mergers. How the financing vehicle went from uncool to sexy IPO alternative. We get the scoop from our news editor and venture writer, Paul Bonanos. Also joining me on the Bio Century This Week podcast, Simone Fishburne, our editor in chief, Steve Austin, our Washington editor, and Lauren Martz, who leads product development coverage here at Bio Century. Simone, welcome back. Good to have you back. Returning to the drizzly shores of the Atlantic Coast from glamorous Amsterdam. How did our Grand Rounds conference go in Amsterdam? Grand Rounds: Europe Recap Well, first of all, I don't know what you're talking about. It's perfect weather out here in my part of Washington. DCI don't know what you all are talking about. Speaker 1 Glad glad to hear it. I've been fielding reports from friends in New York and the Jersey Shore, and it sounds downright terrifying. Speaker 3 I'm only three blocks away and I thought it was miserable and Gray and drizzly and raining the whole weekend so well. Speaker 2 Maybe it wasn't the weekend this morning. I got in yesterday evening and this morning was just perfect for. Speaker 3 Yeah, yeah, yeah, today's fine, but it was a miserable weekend. I can report on that. Speaker 2 Yeah. All right. Well, Amsterdam was beautiful. And those of us who survived being knocked down by a bicycle or two or three, you know, I live to tell the tale. And I stopped in London on the way back. Let me say a couple of things about Grand Rounds. We will be riding some content out of themes and concepts that arose in one interview that arose during Grand Rounds. But it was interesting for me to read Lauren's very good story on IGA nephropathy. Try saying that three times fast because what I'm reading about and what Lauren explains is that the field is really moving ahead quite fast because of a convergence of what academic discovery has done, the generation of biomarkers that have actually been very useful for the field and FD as agility in implementing these and enabling companies to create successful development plan. So we'll get into that in a minute. Lauren, the reason I highlight that is that you know, the grand rounds conference is really at the sort of we talk about at the interface of academia and industry. And so this example of IJ nephropathy is a really one of the success stories. There were a couple of other things that came up. We'll be writing more about them that I just find fascinating. One, we had a incredibly interesting panel on autonomous labs, right? And that's actually can be difficult to understand, but the panel made it extremely interesting to understand. One of the take homes there was this idea of incorporating knowledge. That means you really want labs to be able to work 24/7. They've actually also got to be able to understand how to troubleshoot themselves. You've got to be able to incorporate the knowledge from all your technicians and so on in terms of troubleshooting so that you're using people for different value adds. And we talk about this on the podcast that will be running soon that came from Grand Rounds. And then there's things like topics that came up on panel after panel and hallway discussions. And one of those is, guess what, lipoprotein ALP little A. So what really you get to start to take the pulse of like the autonomous labs is something completely futuristic. Where are we going? And you start to get a sense of that. But on LP Little A, you really realize that this data that Novartis presented, negative data that Nevada's presented has ricocheted through the industry. Everybody has an opinion, not the same one, right? Everybody's, there's a few, not 2 camps, a few camps, right? And we talked about this earlier on this podcast, but it's very clear that, you know, that's a target that again came out of a lot of academia, out of a lot of research, was sort of well executed in a way. And as much as understanding it, at least we thought it was well executed and turned into development programs. And now we're learning it's probably not as simple as we thought. So it's sort of bookending this with some areas where that's been incredibly fruitful interaction and areas where I guess it was fruitful, but not quite so successful as interaction. So that's my take home. Speaker 1 Right. Well, next year, Grand Rounds will be headed where we're going to Portugal, yes. Speaker 2 Lisbon, Lisbon. It's going to be amazing. But before then, we're going to Texas, right? Speaker 1 Right. Yeah, Houston, where there's quite a good scene happening there. And of course, our China Healthcare Summit coming up in November in Shanghai and the East W Summit in Seoul early next year. So we have a whole lineup for you. IgA Nephropathy Pipeline But Speaking of lineups, the IGA Nephropathy pipeline chart that Lauren put together is quite a lineup divvied up into three buckets, and the number of companies in the space is sizable, to say the least. Lauren, you spoke with quite a few people for this story. What did you learn? Speaker 4 Thanks, Jeff. Yeah. So as Simone already mentioned, this is an area where a lot of academic innovation has sort of come together to help support a lot of innovation within this indication. So the reason that we looked into this now is that this is an area where we've seen 7 new drug approvals in the past five years. Not all of those have been by FDA. Those are global approvals. Before that, there were none specifically approved tragic nephropathy. The fact that we've had so much success, regulatory success and there's still so much development happening in the clinic, I think it's a good time to look at why companies are seeing continued market opportunity within this field. After speaking with some of the companies working on this indication, I've learned that this is a place where there's room to improve for patients. So we have sort of three categories of drugs and IG and nephropathy. The first approvals were really just aimed at protecting the kidney, which we're not very specific for, for this type of of renal disease, but just the idea of, you know, damage is happening. We have to try to protect the kidney any way we can. There are also newer classes including the complement inhibitors, which are aimed at kind of stopping like making a hot kidney less hot, sort of the acute inflammation that's happening and cutting off that inflammatory process so you can stop further damage from happening. And then there's a third class or a third category that goes even upstream from that, which is where we're seeing the April and the bath inhibitors, which are a very hot target class where you're trying to cut off the damage the the sort of the inflammatory process at the top of the pathway. So IGA nephropathy happens when patients have an abnormal type of IGA, an antibody that's produced. Auto antibodies are generated against that IGA. They form a complex and they lodge in the kidney and set off an inflammatory casket. There are three different areas. That's one of the reasons we have so many approvals is because there are three different places where you can sort of try to manage what's happening in the disease. And the current guidance suggests that at least two of these, but maybe all three of these different categories are things that that patients may need to be treated with. But it's also a case where patients are diagnosed young. Most of them are diagnosed between the ages of 10 and 40. The idea is you have to manage chronically for a long life of a patient this inflammatory process to preserve their kidney function. So hopefully, you know, whenever they do die, it's not from kidney failure. So the whole idea now is to be as safe as possible and the least disruptive as possible for these patient lives. So improve safety, a high level of efficacy obviously, but also increasing the dosing intervals is something that seems like the next generation of companies are really working toward. Speaker 2 So Lauren, I know there are 7 products already on the market, as you said, globally for this indication. Who are the leading companies and the ones that you spoke to who are sort of driving the next wave? Speaker 4 Sure. So I'm going to home in on the top of that pathway that we talked about or sort of stopping this process before it starts, which is I think where a lot of the innovation is happening now, that's where we have the April and the Bath targets. So some of the earlier stage companies in that space are Climb Bio, which is doing an anti April. They're on the April only side of sort of a debate, which is do we target April or do we target April and Bath. Another company that's on the April only side of that argument is Jade Biosciences. And then we've spoken in the past with a company called Blvd. which is a relatively new launch, which is working on the April and Bath idea, but more advanced in development. There is a program from Vertex that is under FDA review that could become the 8th therapy approved. That's an April and Bath inhibitor and there are also there's another mechanism within this class which is targeting CD38. We have programs from Takeda and Biogen that are both working on that space. Speaker 2 Lauren, there's really so much in the story. I encourage people to see it, to look at the mechanisms, to look at the pipeline. Maybe you can just talk very briefly. You mentioned in the article some of the challenges ahead and sort of ways that companies are differentiating within the sort of dosing and the clinical trial strategy. Can you just highlight that for us? Speaker 4 Sure. So I think one of the biggest things that companies will have to face now is the fact that the first crop of biotechs and farmers that were developing IGA nephropathy therapies didn't have really a standard of care to go against. But now that you've got approved therapies often times at the same mechanism, it's the it's the same problem that you would face doing a clinical development program for almost any indication, which is that now there's a standard of care. FDA is still asking for placebo-controlled trials. So we know these things work relatively well. That's one of the challenges. I've heard about a meeting that was sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation in April where there seemed to be some feedback from FDA about possibly accepting a shorter placebo-controlled trial, So maybe a 12 month endpoint versus a 24 month endpoint. And there's also the fact that these drugs aren't universally available. You know, many patients can be treated outside of the US So that's one of the clinical trial challenges. I think differentiating as you mentioned is another challenge and especially within the April bath field. But I think longer dosing intervals is, is what everyone's going for in that case. The anti CD30 eights are slightly different. So targeting April and Bath you're trying to inhibit the production of the abnormal IGA from the the B cells, the plasma cells anti CD38. The aim is to deplete the cells that are producing that abnormal IGA. So what Takeda has found, and I think Biogen has found something similar, is that you're able to bring down the levels for a longer time. So specifically, the problematic IGA is depleted for longer than the normal antibodies that you need to have normal immune responses to viruses and bacteria and everything else. And so it looks like, and what's being tested now is this idea that maybe you could treat a patient for six months and have up to 18 months off of therapy, which would be really beneficial for any patients, but especially, you know, a woman of child bearing age trying to get pregnant and not wanting to be on therapy during that time. I think they're just different ways that companies are are trying to set their therapies apart at this time. Speaker 1 Yeah, it's great to see the activity in this space. So many players will drop a link in the show notes so that you can check out Lauren's piece. And we'll be back to talk Heidi Overton after this. Speaker 5 This episode of Biocentury this week is brought to you by the 6th Biocentury Bay Helix East West Biopharma Summit March 15th to 17th, 2027 in Seoul. Arc of innovation is emerging across Asia and western biopharma leaders are taking note. From cross-border deals to Newcos in March 2027, the 6th Bio Century Bay Helix East West Biopharma Summit returns to South Korea. Meet the biopharma leaders putting Korea innovation on the global map. Learn why Korea has become a clinical trial and manufacturing hub. Discover if Korea is the next hotspot for new Co formation, plus meet biopharma innovators from India to Singapore to China and Japan. Register now at biocenturyeastwest.com. Speaker 1 OK, well it's not too early to sign up for the East W Summit coming next March in Seoul. I'm currently working with my colleague Tim Tullick to recruit presenting companies, so drop us a line if you'd like to learn more. You are listening to the Biocentury This Week podcast. Overton Hearing Like to bring in Steve Usden now? Steve has been following a number of threads within the Beltway, but first and foremost, as we discussed last week, Heidi Overton had her day before the HELP committee. How did it go for her, Steve? Speaker 3 You know, it was mixed. It was interesting. I think that the most important themes from her prepared marks, from the things that she wanted people to take away from it will be encouraging to patient groups and the biopharma industry. She said that President Trump's direction for her was, quote, to go fast. She cited competition with China, national security, American patients, access to innovative medicines as reasons to reduce unnecessary impediments to drug development. She endorsed Operation Trialblazer, the blueprint for speeding early stage development. And she talked about implementing the plausible mechanism pathway and ensuring that it goes beyond N of 1 therapies. So, you know, those are all messages that I think that resonate well and are non controversial. But there were a lot of other aspects of the hearing that were unusual. She started her testimony by thanking her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and citing 2 biblical passages that she said have been her life versus since she was a child. You know, some FDA commissioners have publicly discussed their faith. Frank Young was especially vocal about that. But I haven't heard a public health nominee make that kind of statement at a confirmation hearing. So that was unusual. In general. Her testimony was a real contrast for Marty Mccarry's. Unlike Mccarry, she didn't denigrate FDA staff, and in fact, she seemed to go out of her way to praise FDA staff. It didn't accuse the biopharma industry of corrupting the agency. And she didn't make excuses for HHS Secretary Kennedy's unscientific recommendations to use home remedies to treat measles, which Mccarry did. She unambiguously said the measles vaccine is safe, effective and necessary. And she went further. She expressed confidence repeatedly that all approved vaccines and all approved products, all FDA approved products are safe and effective. She kept returning to that repeatedly. The idea that if FDA is approved a drug or a label for a drug, that should be respected. And I think that's going to be a very welcome message, especially to staff at FDA. Speaker 2 Steve Obviously people, what is it? They campaign and poetry and they and they. Speaker 3 Govern in prose. Speaker 2 And they govern in prose. And so it is with it's a confirmation hearings. What's going to make or break it for Heidi Overton? Speaker 3 I think it's kind of really hinge on whether the committee chairman, Bill Cassidy, believes that she meant what she said and whether another one of its members, Josh Hawley, doesn't believe what she said. OK, so Cassidy. Speaker 2 You mean believes that she will do something different than what she said? Speaker 3 Exactly. I'm going to explain that. So Cassidy noted Overton's support for vaccination, which he had said before the hearing was really a bar for any commissioner if they didn't clear that he wasn't going to vote for them. But he also said, look, Kennedy made promises to him about vaccines and the confirmation process, and then he broke those promises. So basically, he said, how is how could he be sure that Overton really meant what she said? Right. And the Democrats also made a similar comments. They repeatedly quoted incorrect statements that President Trump has made about public health issues from vaccines to Tylenol and autism, and tried to get Overton to explicitly say that Trump was wrong. She wouldn't do it. She would reiterate what she believed was the correct position. And in many cases, those were contrary to what Trump would say. But she wouldn't say the words that the Democrats wanted. And so I think that was kind of a more partisan take from the Democrats about Cassidy's concern, which is would she stand up to pressure from Kennedy and Trump if and when they demand that she do things that are unethical or would harm the public? And I think if she's confirmed, that's going to be one of the big tests, right? Speaker 2 Would you assume that no Democrats will vote for her or am I wrong to think that? Speaker 3 I think it's too soon to say. We don't know whether they will or not. Mccary had some Democrats vote for him. I think every every commissioner in memory, don't hold me to this, but I believe that they've all had some level of bipartisan support. So when Democrats and Republicans questioned over to him about the abortion drug Mythopristone, and there was a lot of talk about that at this hearing, she said FDA has deemed it safe and effective and that it had approved the label change that dropped the in person prescribing requirements. She reiterated her position that FDA's decisions should be respected. She also said that there's an ongoing review of mifepristone safety and she refused to prejudge its outcome. Polly wasn't happy with that at all. He said that's contrary to the position that the Trump administration has taken in litigation about mifepristone's REMS. And he made it clear that he's not going to be satisfied. With Overton and he's likely not going to vote for her unless he believes that she's going to overturn the the relaxation of the Rams on mythic pristone. So that's going to be very interesting to see how she, you know, how she navigates that issue. It's possible that FDA or the Trump administration will take some actions before a confirmation vote that would help her with Paulie on that. Speaker 2 It kind of goes back to the Nancy Pelosi approach of, you know, she used to say, I can, I can count. Speaker 3 Like it's all. Speaker 2 Going to be down to. Speaker 3 It's it's really going to be about counting. But you know, the other thing that struck me about the hearing was I think that the most important issue really wasn't discussed much, if at all, which is how high Overton, if she's confirmed, will manage the agency. It's facing really serious problems and stresses the poorly conceived and chaotically implemented organizational changes under the Trump administration, starting with the firings from the Doge did, but going on to the kind of real problems that happened when FDA tried in a really chaotic way to centralized functions that had been dispersed throughout the agency, HR and logistics and things like that. That's caused a lot of problems. Whoever is the next commissioner is going to have to untangle those things and also deal with poor morale and a very difficult environment for recruiting and retaining staff who are really essential to to get FDA back on track. Speaker 1 All right, Steve, when might we get a vote out of help? Speaker 3 I don't know. I don't know when it's going to happen. I think that they're going to wait to get written responses from Doctor Overton. That's the that's the usual process. And then it'll depend on on the Senate schedule, which is very tight, and on Chairman Cassidy's decision on the timing on it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was delayed until after the midterms. Speaker 1 Yeah, could well be. Commerce's Tariff Guidance Well, another story you are following is the tariff story You wrote a piece about, I don't know, 10 days ago saying we've got very little time before the tariffs take effect and there's been no guidance as promised. And lo and behold, guidance was hurried out a couple of days later. It left people wanting a bit. What's the latest, Steve? Speaker 3 Yeah. So the guidance as such as it is, has been released. It leaves a lot of questions unaddressed and it sets up a process where some things by default, some products by default will be exempt from the tariffs, but many won't. And many that potentially could be exempt from the tariffs are going to have to go through a process that hasn't been defined. Basically, the Trump administration has said the companies that believe that they're eligible for the tariffs but aren't getting the exemption automatically, it gave them an e-mail address and some questions that they're supposed to answer and said, you know, send an e-mail to this to this address. But it didn't say what's going to happen next. It indicated that the decisions are going to be made on a case by case basis by commerce and in consultation with other government agencies, including HHS. So that doesn't suggest that the decisions will be made rapidly. It also doesn't make it clear whether there's an appeals process. There's there's just a lot of uncertainty about how all of this is going to work. It's certainly going to increase the costs and complexity for small companies and mid sized companies that are importing products, especially from countries that don't automatically get the exemption. I think that's going to be especially true for imports from products that are manufactured in China, that are manufactured in Australia and Canada. And it really remains to be seen how the whole thing's going to work. Speaker 1 All right, so watch this space. We know you're on the case, Steve, so look forward to following along with you. What happens next on the tariff situation? Reverse Mergers' New Look Hey, it's been a good year for companies looking to debut on NASDAQ IP. OS have rebounded with about two dozen biotechs pricing offerings thus far, many of which have traded up in the aftermarket. But a growing number of companies and investors are choosing the advantages of going public via a reverse merger over a splash year NASDAQ debut. Paul, you've been talking to folks, bankers, CEOs and investors on how they're thinking through this decision. What have you learned? Speaker 6 Yeah. So these are a little bit different from the reverse mergers we've always seen. Maybe that's a good place to start the story that we have published. And as you said, you know there have been a lot of these. It's almost as many as IPOs in 2026. The story addresses the type of reverse merger that includes a PIPE, a concurrent deal. PIPE is a private investment in public equity and these are concurrent deals that are typically now in the 9 figure range to fund the company. So rather than raising money in an IPO, as you've said, the companies are kind of doing two different steps. They're putting together syndicates that are willing to invest a certain amount that, you know, might be in the same league as what the company might raise in a public offering. And then they're also doing the reverse merger, which is to say, as you probably know, finding a public company that acts as the shell merging into that so that the surviving public company carries on what the private company was up to, right, usually takes its name. And like I say, reverse mergers have always been around. In the past, a lot of those deals were seen as less prestigious, a less prestigious way to get to the market. And in many cases in the past, the motivation was to access cash inside of the shell, The shell maybe, you know, trading below cash or have uninvestable programs where it made sense for both parties, right? The private company gets the public companies cash. The public company shareholders get a stake in something that has more momentum and is moving forward rather than whatever they had that was sort of flagging. And like I say, these deals are not about that. They're not your father's reverse mergers, right? The PIPE is really the major differentiator. The syndicate is coming in with something that looks a lot like a crossover round, except instead of it being a pre IPO deal, it's concurrent with the act of going public, right? The cash inside the shell in some cases is either paid out as a dividend or disposed of in some other way. The programs inside the shell could be out licensed or maybe the shareholders get ACVR, there's a destination for them. It's it's kind of a clean out, right? A couple of people stressed the importance of a clean shell. There are a few different flavors, but clearly these are the kinds of deals that are different from the old reverse mergers, right? Speaker 2 So Paul, I have a a question for you. Can you talk about the origins of some of these companies? Does this in any way represent fallout from the over funding during the 2021 boom? Companies on either side, either companies that sort of had programs but didn't get money and so they're now, you know, reverse merging with someone to survive, or I don't know if they were companies that were funded and actually got funding but became the shell company, their programs didn't pan out. I'm just wondering if there's any sort of reason why this is happening now. Speaker 6 Well, so there are plenty of shell companies that were adequately funded at some point but may have uninvestable programs now. So that that is part of this group, I would think that you know, had already been public. They, they raised plenty of money, they got their crossover round, they went public and now they're trading way down on NASDAQ. There have been plenty of those. I actually was hearing in my conversations that there aren't appreciably more shell companies than there were in the past. And in fact, there may be more competition for the shell companies now for the private companies seeking to do reverses on the private company side. I didn't really get the sense that these were necessarily over funded companies that have been sort of waiting in the wings to go public for a long time. And in fact some of those going public via reverse merger now are very new companies. The one that launched a week or two ago called North Immunology, for example, was founded by a private equity company. We didn't even know it existed until the announcement that it was going publicly reverse merger and pipe. So some of these are very new. Also some of the new codes that we've been seeing coming out of Asia are going this route. I don't think there's any particular reason why they would be guided toward this path, except maybe to say that because they're the one trait of a new Co. And and we're talking about companies that are VC backed based on science coming out of Asia is that sometimes the path is a little shorter the market because there has already been clinical work done in Asia before the new code launches, right? So there's no need to do the crossover round before going public. If the crossover round is part of going public, that's the pipe, right? Speaker 1 What are some of the other advantages that are appealing to investors? Speaker 6 Yeah, I'm glad you asked that. Well, their their advantage is on a couple of sides, right. So for the company that's going public via this process, the fundraising process gives you pricing certainty. But a lot of people stress that between you and the investor group, you work something out to put together the pipe rather than, you know, in the IPO process you're talking about a number of shares in a range. You really don't know what you're going to get until the end. And it, to some extent, that's out of your control, right? Or partly out of your control. And some people also stress that, you know, it's sort of reverses the steps. As one person said, you can figure out your funding first, then do all the regulatory stuff afterward as the merger piece of the deal moves toward its close, right? But you've already lined up the funding, and that process may take four to six months. And, you know, you really don't even know, given the volatility in recent years, what the IPO market will look like weeks and months ahead. So this kind of gives you a way to lock in a deal, right? Certainty and control were on a lot of people's minds. And that is also true for the investor syndicate, right? The group gets to work out who's in and who's out. Rather than having underwriters fill the book during the IPO process. You know, you might prefer a mix that favors specialists or is led by specialists versus making a lot of room for mutual funds and generalists in the group, as you might with an IPO. One person said to me, you know, biotech is sort of tricky. Maybe your biotech story, your company's story is complicated and it's best understood by specialists. So that's a piece of this, too. You can make a deal where your investor base better understands you, right? Speaker 1 Yeah, that was that was Chen Yu, right of. Speaker 6 Yeah, TCGX, the column group related crossover. Speaker 1 Fund, yeah, we, we can control who we let in, he said. I thought that was a, a good quote. You spoke to Kelly Liz Bakken of Wedbush as well. And one thing I found interesting, she kind of talked about how the company is kind of playing multiple tracks and, and I had thought about it as 2 tracks. You know, you're thinking of a deal, you're thinking of going public and she, she actually said there's more tracks than that, right? Paul, you. Speaker 6 You could do another private round. That's one of your options and you could also do you know, maybe a non dilutive licensing deal where you bring in that bolus of cash from the upfront payment that doesn't affect your balance sheet. So yeah, there there's the quad path. She said something about offering leverage to if you're, if people are sniffing around for M&A, you can say, no, we're staying, we're staying private for longer or we're raising money some other way or yeah, there there's a lot. Speaker 1 Of talking about how like an S1 is a signal, but a reverse gives you even more leverage. Speaker 6 Yeah, it's another option, right, exactly. And you know, I'm glad you mentioned Wedbush because Wedbush has really been a leader in doing these types of deals. I think it's about 10 this year, maybe even more than that out of, you know, it's at least 15 overall so far this year. There may be more if you count a couple of deals that are very close to this model but don't necessarily fit all the criteria. You know, we saw a fairly recent deal that looked a lot like a reverse merger, but they were keeping their original name and, you know, sort of signaling it's a little bit more like a pivot. There were also some deals announced last year that closed in 2026. So it's hard to say whether to count them. But you know, overall, not only does it mean that the total of these deals is close to the IPO count, which people have been really heralding as a a bounce back for biotechs, right? It's also that many more companies are going public via a different route, right? And overall, and I think Chen, you said this as well, you know, it's good for the industry to have money flowing to public biotechs. More public companies is good. It's a sign of health when people are putting cash behind programs in biotech that have a card to turn overcoming up, right? It's something kind of something to bet on or something to look forward to where you're funding a project that's moving forward. It's a sign of the overall health of the sector, I would say. Speaker 1 Yeah. And our our colleagues, Brendan Hearn and Lindsay Martin in a companion piece kind of looking at some of the data, well worth checking out as well. They kind of point out how reverse mergers had gotten to a low of I think 7 last year. So definitely bouncing back from that. But if you read the story, you can delve into their analysis. Well, Paul, it's a great piece. Really enjoyed your interviews that you did. Speaker 6 Yeah, I, I like that sidecar piece too. The the data byte accompanying and and just to be clear, yes, the number has bounced back, but it's really these are a different type of deals with all of this money flowing in from via the pipes. And you know, as one person pointed out too, a lot of that is recycled money from M&A deals and such getting redeployed into biotech companies, which is very important as well. Speaker 1 Excellent. Well, a couple of other things we're watching here at Bio Century. There's that Merck deal, Paul. Quite a tidy sum for a preclinical asset. Speaker 6 Yeah, one of the biggest ever. I haven't run the numbers. Saw one person saying it was the biggest ever for a preclinical asset. I was unfamiliar with Cybrunch, based in China. It actually has a longer name. It's Shanghai Sipuri, SIPURI Pharmaceutical Technology and it's around AK Ras G12C molecular glue inhibitor, $400 million upfront. The total deal value exceeds $2 billion. It's a lot for a preclinical program. Yeah, we'll we'll be looking at that deal. Obviously lots of action around K Ras given the Revolution medicines approval this year too. Speaker 1 And Paul, one other thing you flag for us in our morning meeting today, this new company link cell, what can you tell us there? Speaker 6 Yeah, there there isn't that company link cell you're describing car T company they say next generation car T's with one program for renal cell carcinoma already in the clinic. The CEO did come from system unit also is a veteran of Bristol-Myers Squibb and and those two companies had a deal, a major deal a couple of years ago, the CEO. Speaker 1 D'elia is the CEO. The system unit deal pause, you're saying caught a lot of attention. There will be a lot of eyes on this company and the CMO they've just announced, Friedrich Graf Thinkenstein. It used to be the CMO over at Iovance. Speaker 6 Yes and the Co founder was from STEM Centrix. You remember that ADC company that ABV acquired the The results were not great, but it was a a landmark deal. Speaker 1 Excellent. Well, certainly one to watch, no doubt. We'll be digging into what their deals are looking like and learn a little bit more about this and gated car T therapy that the company is pursuing. Thanks for tuning in this week. You can find all these stories in the show notes. If you're a subscriber, you'll have access to the transcript to the podcast. And as ever, thanks to Kendall Square Orchestra for the Music for Bio Centuries podcasts. And a shout out to our production engineer, Cole Travis.