Good day and welcome to the Gubra Henrik Blou, Louise Dalbøge, K4 2024. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star, followed by the number one if you are listening via the phone, or submit via the Q&A box on the webcast page. Finally, I would like to advise all participants that this call is being recorded. Thank you. I'd now like to welcome Henrik Blou, CEO, to begin the conference. Henrik, over to you. Thank you very much, Operator, and welcome to everyone on this call. Today we'll be presenting the annual report 2024, and I'm Henrik Blou, I'm the CEO of Gubra, and I also have with me Louise Dalbøge, our Chief Scientific Officer, and Kristian Borbos, our Chief Financial Officer. Gubra is a research powerhouse. We have a core research engine, and we are specialized in preclinical research within metabolic diseases. This core research engine we can use to deliver research services, CRO, to external customers, and the other part of the business, the DNP, that is where we are using the core research engine to advance our own internal pipeline programs. We've been growing steadily over many years, actually 30% yearly revenue growth over a very long period of time. We are 260 colleagues all gathered here at our site now for Copenhagen, Denmark, apart from our colleagues in the Boston sales office. In the service business, we are servicing 16 out of top 20 pharma companies in the world. It's a testimony to the high quality and specialized expertise that we can deliver in our services. In 2024, we experienced strong performance across Gubra. In the service business, the CRO, we had a revenue growth of 31%, and that is compared to the 20%-15% growth that we were expecting in the beginning of the year. A remarkable growth, and that is actually on top of another remarkable growth year back in 2023. We also saw very solid EBIT margins in the service business, 30%, and that also came in slightly higher than originally expected. For the pipeline part of the business, the DNP, we were expecting one to two new partnerships, and we ended up making one new partnership, so that was also within expected range. Last but not least, last year we presented clinical results from the Group Ami SAD phase I study, and they were very encouraging and to our satisfaction. We will get further into some of this today. I'm just there, I'm shifting slide. Some of the operational highlights of the year, as mentioned in the Amelin program, we did release the SAD data in November. We have a multiple ascending dose study, which is progressing to plan, and we are now revealing that we will be giving some interim results from the MAD study in April 2025, so in April this year, and that is a specification compared to previously announced where we said it will be in the first half of this year, but now we can reveal that it will be in April. Another pipeline program, which is highly interesting, we find is our UCN2 program for healthy weight loss. We are advancing it at speed, and the preclinical talks are currently ongoing, and we are ramping up for a phase I study with this program late this year or early next year. As mentioned, we entered into a new partnership that was with Amelix. It's a very interesting partnership where we are together with our partner developing a novel long-acting GLP-1 receptor antagonist. It is within the treatment of post-bariatric hypoglycemia and other rare diseases. Last but not least, as mentioned, a significant growth in the service business, 31% revenue growth, and primarily driven by a very strong interest in our obesity services and kidney-related services. For the CRO business, we saw an EBIT that was up by 44% year over year. In the annual report, we are also shedding some light on our new 2030 strategy, and I'll shed some light on a few aspects here. In the pipeline and models part of Gubra, we are still very enthusiastic and ambitious, and we have upped our ambitious expectations. Where we previously said we would have one to two fully owned programs in the clinic, we now say that we will aim for one to three fully owned programs in the clinic. Also, we are now saying that we will be developing one to two new flagship areas, and starting out, we will be looking into women's health, where we see a number of factors that make this a very interesting area for us. We see a significant unmet need. We see a growing interest across the industry, and we also see a range of diseases where we can build on the knowledge and expertise that we already have in-house. Based on these factors, we expect it to be an area that can contribute in the future to both the service business and the pipeline business of Gubra. Another aspect which we are mentioning here is that for the core research engine, we have experienced this exciting growth over several years, and it means we have been expanding heavily here. It means we are actually saying that we will purposely limit the growth in CRO revenue that's going into the core research engine in 2025. We will limit it to a growth of 10%-20%, and that is because we would like to ensure that it stays as sharp and strong as possible to enable the future growth of Gubra and the future pushing forward of our pipeline assets. We'll actually also go in and work a little bit on the balance, how we are using the core research engine. We'll be spending more resources on the pipeline in 2025 compared to previous years, and that's why we are, as mentioned, purposely limiting the influx of service studies to the core research engine. All right, I think that's enough on my part. I will hand over the word to Louise. Thank you. Moving on to the drug discovery and partnership part of the business, let me just start by saying here we're peptide experts. We discover novel peptide-based drug candidates either alone or with a partner, and all our work is done using an internally developed streamlined drug discovery platform. Using this platform, we can quickly develop a peptide hit molecule into a novel IP-protected development candidate. The platform takes advantage of AI and machine learning, which is combined with high throughput wet lab screening. We screen multiple peptide libraries, thousands of peptides, and we use multiparameter optimization, which saves time and enables the identification of better molecules faster. The streamlined platform is key in the buildup of our pipeline. Here you see the Gubra pipeline in green, the internal programs. The most advanced one is an Amelin program where we released positive top-line results from the SAD study back in November. Next in line is a UCN2 program within high quality weight loss, also headed towards the clinic. Additionally, we have a range of other early stage programs. We have the assets developed through various partnerships. You can see the first four here is with Boehringer Ingelheim, and you might recall the small asterisk next to the top program saying that it has been discontinued within obesity. New information here is that BI is exploring the potential for the compound in other disease areas. We also have a collaboration with HEMAT within bleeding disorders and with Amelix within post-bariatric hypoglycemia, the new collaboration. Let's take a closer look at some of these programs, starting with Group Ami, a long-acting Amelin analog. Group Ami is in development for weight management indication and could be positioned as both an alternative or an addition to Incotin-based treatment. Group Ami has a balanced receptor on the Amelin and Calcitonin receptors, just like native Amelin, and it has a half-life compatible with once weekly dosing. Importantly, Group Ami is chemically and physically stable at neutral pH, allowing co-formulation with other anti-obesity agents. In November, we released top-line phase I A results for Group Ami. The single ascending dose study was a very traditional dose escalation study, and doses covered ranged from 0.5 mg- 6 mg. It was a randomized double-blinded within cohorts and placebo-controlled study enrolling a total of 48 subjects. In this study, we showed that Group Ami was very well tolerated, with adverse events being predominantly GI-related, mild, and transient. Group Ami had a long half-life of 11 days, and a single dose of Group Ami reduced body weight dose dependently, and the effect was sustained throughout the study. We are very pleased about these positive results supporting further development of Group Ami. We are currently testing Group Ami in the multiple ascending dose part of the study. The study outline is shown on the slide here, and in this part of the study, we're also including females. The study consists of two parts: a part A, where subjects are dosed for six weeks, two cohorts, and a part B, where subjects are dosed for 12 weeks, three cohorts. It's from part A, the first two cohorts, where we're looking very much forward to present interim results in April. Moving on to another very exciting program in our pipeline. This program builds on a new mechanism where we use long-acting UCN2 analog to induce a muscle-sparing weight loss. This is interesting because with current weight management strategies, it's well acknowledged that lean mass accounts for 20%-40% of the weight lost, and lean mass is bones and it's muscles. Therefore, we think it's time now to focus on the quality of the weight loss rather than just the quantity. By this, we mean that we want to maximize the loss of fat mass while preserving or even increasing lean mass, and then we want the potential for cardiorenal upside. In preclinical animal models, we have shown that we can obtain all this with a long-acting UCN2 analog, which holds potential to become the next generation of anti-obesity treatment. We have designed a selected UCN2 analog. It has excellent formulation properties and allometric scaling from data in mice, rats, and minipigs, supports a once-weekly dosing profile in humans. If we look at these data from a study conducted in diet-induced obese rats, you can see that by itself, the UCN2 analog doesn't change body weight much. When we look at body composition, that's when we start to see the real changes here. You can see that the UCN2 analog increases lean mass and decreases fat mass. Basically, you can say that we're turning fat into muscles. You can also appreciate that other weight-lowering agents such as semaglutide decrease both lean and fat mass. When we combine a UCN2 analog with weight-loading agents such as semaglutide, you can see that we can completely prevent the lean mass loss and drive the fat mass loss even further. We are currently planning for clinical testing. We have initiated the non-clinical tox program, and we plan to initiate a phase I clinical study late 2025, early 2026. Thank you very much, Louise. Just a very few words about the financials, and this is our Discovery & Partnerships business. In 2024, we got a little bit more milestone payments than we did in 2023. On the other hand, we also spent more funds on developing own programs, and as Louise said, both the Amelin and the UCN2, so we increased the cost in 2024. Again, this is as expected and to drive more projects in parallel. Turning to the CRO business, this is a very traditional style. You have seen that before. There is just a brief explanation of our CRO business. We are specialized in the only preclinical phase in our CRO business with a strong hold in metabolic and fibrotic diseases, and not least obesity also. We serve everything from very small biotech companies to the big pharma companies. Out of those big, the top 20 big pharma companies, 16 out of those are or have been customers at Gubra. A great variety of customers turn to Gubra for our expertise in performing high-quality CRO studies at speed and not least, again, at quality. As Henrik touched upon in the beginning, the results for our CRO business were nothing but excellent in 2024. We grew the business 31% in terms of revenue, and we do this in a profitable way also. We improved the EBIT in absolute terms more than 40%, and that translates into a margin of 30%. An excellent year for our CRO business again. The main drivers have been obesity, as Henrik said, and also kidney. Last but not least, on the outlook for 2025. As Henrik also mentioned, we want to find a balance between our internal programs and our external CRO business. We have grown 30% in 2023, roughly the same in 2024. We think it is prudent and value-improving for Gubra to also focus on our internal programs. We guide for an organic revenue growth in our CRO business of 10%-20%. That translates into an EBIT margin of 25%-31%. In our Discovery & Partnerships segment, here we are scaling up a bit. We are running the Amelin, the MAD study this year, and we are preparing the UCN2 for the clinic, and that entails some additional cost compared to 2024. We have also upscaled our R&D efforts. All in all, that means that we're now guiding for total cost in that is both cost of sales, COGS, and operating cost, OPEX, of DKK 230 million-DKK 250 million for 2025. That concludes our presentation, and now we open up for questions. Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. If you are watching via the webcast, please submit your written questions via the Q&A box on your screen. If you have dialed in and would like to ask a question, please press star one on the telephone keypad to raise your hand and join the queue. If you would like to withdraw your question, simply press star one again. If you are called upon to ask your question and are listening via loudspeaker on your device, please pick up your handset and ensure that your phone is not on mute when asking your question. Your first question comes from the line of Thomas Bowers from SEB. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you very much. I'll kick off with a couple of Amelin Gubami questions here. First, just given the, you would say, the increased focus we have now on spending in DNP, can you maybe just update us on your partnering plans here and timing for Gubami in terms of potentially an outliers deal? In addition to that question, at least one competitor has been quite outspoken recently about high interest for this Amelin project. Is this something that you see seeing as well, even though you are, of course, a little bit earlier stage here? A question also on Gubami in terms of the clinical trial. What should we actually expect to see from those first two doses here that you will disclose in April? Of course, given you see no need for titration here, I'm just wondering whether it's fair to assume that we should see data that is somewhat below the relevant therapeutic window at this point. What should we consider here as a good result in terms of rate reduction for those two first doses? Can you maybe give a little bit of flavor on your considerations for the part B in terms of also titration and dose levels? Any color here would be very helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. I can start off. The first part of the question with regards to partnering plans for Gubami and timing, we generally have a strategy of partnering relatively early, as we call it. We can take programs into phase 2A, but no longer, and that is still our strategy. We are opportunistic. We are keeping relevant parties informed, and we ensure that whenever we have new data, we take them out and discuss them with potential relevant partners. I think that's diving into the second part of your question, really, if there is an interest out there. We definitely think so. There are many discussions. There are many presentations. There's a lot of interest out there within obesity. I think it's fair to say that a lot of companies are considering how, if, when should we enter the obesity race. We believe that today we are treating all these patients more or less in the same way. Going forward, there will be a segmentation of this huge patient population. There will be companies trying to make specific treatments for subsegments of these patients. It could be overweight with a heart angle, overweight with a liver angle, overweight with a muscle angle, and so on. We definitely still expect a range of companies that would like to enter the obesity race with each their view on how they should do it in the best way. Expectations for the MAD means multiple ascending doses. By nature, you're starting out with the lower doses. The two first cohorts where we will be releasing data from in April are, of course, with lower doses. They've been dosed for six weeks and with the same amount each week. We are, of course, looking a lot into safety and tolerability. Those are key things for a phase I study. Also, PD markers, so in this case, what type of weight loss is, of course, also of interest. We are not pre-guessing. We are awaiting the data as everyone else, and we will see what they show. We think based on the very encouraging SAD data where we saw after just one dose, we saw weight loss, and we saw a sustained effect for six weeks, we are, of course, very excited and looking forward to seeing those data as well. For the part B titration, Louise, will you comment on that? Yes, definitely. From the single ascending dose study, we saw that we could dose really high, up to 6 milligrams, and it was very well tolerated. Of course, as Henrik mentioned, the ambition with the multiple ascending dose study is to dose multiple times with the increasing dose levels, and the ambition is to explore the full dosing potential of Gubami. Great. Thank you very much. Your next question comes from the line of Suzanne van Voorthuizen from Kempen. Your line is open. Hi there. This is Suzanne. Thanks for taking my question. April data release on Gubami. What should we expect in terms of disclosure? How much data will you release? Should we expect something in a similar fashion and level of detail as the single ascending dose data from last year, or will it be more limited? My second question is if you can give some more context on the dose levels that you selected for the multiple ascending dose part one. You mentioned these are lower doses. Do you mean low in general or low relative to the single ascending dose levels? Can you remind us what we should expect in terms of weight loss or other metrics that you would want to point to as relevant in this update? I have some follow-up questions on the strategy for the CRO and DNP segments. Yeah, thank you for these questions. For the April release, it's not entirely decided exactly in what format and what will be released. We will, of course, be having some degree of similarity to what we could disclose from the SAD. I mean, it would be natural to look into adverse events and also weight loss, but it's not entirely decided how and exactly what it will be. For the dosing levels in the MAD, that is not disclosed yet, and it's not something we can disclose at this point in time. You were speculating into low. What does that mean? We're just referring to the nature of MAD trials where you're starting out at a somewhat low level because you are increasing in each new cohort that you're going into. It is a relative term low in this regard and cannot be directly translated into the SAD levels here. Again, for the weight loss expectations, we do not want to speculate. We will take the data, and we will look at them, and we will see what they show. Again, we are super excited. We think the SAD data held a lot of promise, and of course, we are super excited to see what the MAD data will be showing. Got it. Thank you. On the CRO outlook, how do you plan to limit the revenue growth to 10%-20%? Let's say in a case there's more services amount than 20% growth, how do you prioritize which services you will provide, or is there a first-come, first-served basis? What's your thinking about service requests that you may say no to? Are there any risks related to that? On the DNP ambition, can you elaborate a bit more on you aim to expand it, but how extensive do you hope your pipeline to be by the time you bring one to three wholly owned products in the clinic in 2030? Thank you. Yeah, and thank you also for these questions. Sort of limiting the influx of services, it's partly, as you also alluded to, that we will be prioritizing some of the internal programs, and that will mean there will be a longer lead-in time to certain services, and thereby there will be less capacity available to conduct those kinds of services, and therefore some requests we may not capture. We will also have an eye to where we are the most efficient, what kind of services can we produce in the most efficient way, thereby preserving the margins that we have in this space. There are sort of a number of ways to look at it, and we will be using several of these. Also, we have worked on the pricing for certain services, and I think that will also incur a natural balance as to how many requests we will get in those areas. For the second part, the DNP extensiveness, yeah. As mentioned, we are aiming for one to three programs in the clinic. The pipeline should have a sufficient breadth in order for us to obtain that goal. I cannot say exactly that means that we should increase the number of pipeline programs by a certain percentage, but it means that we will have a very keen focus on making enough pipeline programs in order to, with attrition, to have sufficient clinical programs to fulfill our strategy. All right. Thanks a lot. Your next question comes from the line of Martin Pakoye from SAB. Your line is open. Great. Thank you very much. Martin Pakoye, SAB. Just a couple of questions. Firstly, on the material lift-off in cost in the DNP division from DKK 155 million last year to now DKK 230 million-250 million, could you elaborate a little bit more on the driving the cost increase? Is it how much is related to preparation for clinical start of UCN2 and so forward? Second question is that you expect to see the phase I data in H2 for the triple agonist. Maybe I know that this is partner, so it is a little bit more out of your hands, but could you reel a bit that what should we expect, the level of details, and also if you think that your partner will, at that point in time, reveal the actual target of this first-in-class triple agonist? Thirdly, with the NPY-2R, which is a little bit of a comeback after the obesity indication out of picture, now that Boehringer is looking for new indication, what has this done in terms of the financial terms that you initially did with Boehringer? Okay, Martin, I can start off with the cost increase. This year we run the MAD study for the amylin, and we're also starting our preparations for the clinical study for UCN2. That, of course, one important delta is that we are running two programs now in clinical or clinical preparations. We've also increased the organization significantly. The guidance also includes salaries. As Henrik said, we're also ramping up on our ambitions to feed the pipeline. One more program preparing for the clinic and a ramp-up of discovery activities really explains the delta from DKK 155 million in 2024 to DKK 230 million-250 million in 2025. Yeah, and for the next question, the triple, Louise, will you? Yeah, definitely. Just to remind you about the triple agonist study, it consists of two parts, a Part A, single ascending dose trial, and a Part B, a multiple ascending dose trial. In what format data will be released and whether they will be disclosing the components of the triple agonist, that's up to Boehringer Ingelheim's discretion. We don't have control about that. I can comment on the last question with regards to the NPY-2R program, where earlier it was communicated that they have terminated efforts within obesity. Now we know that they are still considering a future within other indications. I mean, the code contract is still intact, which means if Boehringer Ingelheim decides to take it forward, there are still potential milestones and so on, whatever is in that contract. Again, it is up to Boehringer Ingelheim to disclose further details here. Okay. Just a follow-up question on the focus that you have also discussed in your annual result on the women's health that you will target this more now. Can you just say that this will both be in the CRO and in the DNP divisions? Do you already have the in-house competencies to target this, or do you also look for some inorganically outside as well? Yeah, so starting out, I think when we evaluate various areas, there are several components. One is there has to be a medical need, which is unmet. Clearly see that here. Also, we think that there's a growing interest across the industry, and we see that. Last but not least, we can build on our current competencies. It is a natural step for us to develop into this area. It is not an area where we expect that we need to do an acquisition in order to deliver on it, but we will not preclude it. It is not my current expectation that that is needed. Because of that, all these three aspects are intact here. It is definitely, I think, something that speaks nicely with our core research engine. We can incorporate it here, and we can use it to deliver both preclinical research studies to clients in that space when we have developed it to maturity. We can then also use it to advance internal programs at that point in time. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Morten Larsen from ABG Sundal Collier. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Hey, guys, a couple of questions from me. First, on the margin in the CRO business and your guidance for 2025. You come out a bit softer than I had expected, and obviously, you have raised the target a lot through 2024. Can you just try to help us out in how we should see that maybe a bit softening a margin in 2025 versus your longer-term margin trajectory and how we should bridge that? That's one. Second, can you add some wording on how you find the market for attracting talent and colleagues out there? You are ramping up fast, just running into a tight labor market out there. How are you finding access to new customers? Thirdly, your loss-making again in 2024 on the bottom line. You are targeting a significant cost ramp-up, and you are expanding more into the biotech projects and want to go into women's health. How should we see your longer-term funding considerations playing out as we progress through 2025 and into 2026? I have some follow-ups after that, but let's start with those three. Thank you, Morten. I will take two of the questions, and Henrik can probably take the one on talent acquisitions. On the CRO earnings, I think the level of 30% we had is quite good for 2024. As we grow the company, we also have a need to ramp up on certain service functions: HR, finance, building IT security, cybersecurity. There are a lot of these investments we made to prepare Gubra as a bigger company. That, of course, is cost that needs to be borne by the whole organization. It is not a dilution of the earnings as such in the CRO business. It is just that we are a bit bigger company, and we need to invest in other non-directly related costs to the services. That's the main explanation to what you could say a slight reduction compared to the margins we had some three, four years ago. That also speaks into 2025 also. We are increasing our organization as a whole, and that also impacts the margins slightly. Again, I think having margins in the 25%-30% area is quite good for a CRO. We're growing the company, and so I think that's a satisfactory level from our point of view. Yeah. Also your question regarding the acceleration of our R&D efforts and how we should fund these. I mean, Gubra has, since the company was formed back in 2008, relied on internal funds to fund our operations. We did one raise in connection with the IPO, and we have these different avenues of financing our business through internal funds, and we also have an equity capital market that could be used if needed. I think we will make a decision how we should fund it, but we have a lot of opportunities to fund our business. All right. With regards to talent acquisition, I can say you're absolutely right. There's a tremendous competition for talent, and I think we're in a pretty good place because also what came with the listing as a public company, a lot more attention on Gubra and a lot more general knowledge around Gubra. I think really the applicants that we get are very strong, and we do see interest from generally all over Europe. I think we have a strong brand here. We have a good reputation, and it's an exciting place to work. We definitely think we are in a good place when it comes to getting the right talent on board. Thanks. Two follow-ups, if I may. One, on that allocation of resources between the CRO to the DNP business. One thing that has been a little bit weak since the IPO has been, it seems to be your ability to attract new partners into the DNP business. Now you're allocating more resources into it. Should we read into it that you think you can find even more partners, more than what you're possibly guiding for, even in the near term in the DNP business? That's one. Second, particularly, Henrik, your communication style and leaning much more into the UCN2 program, which appears very interesting. Would you go so far as to make a prediction on which one you're going to partner on first, Gubami or UCN2? Thank you for that. Where you have more partner interest? Yeah, thank you for those follow-up questions. First of all, allocation of resources, we do see a tremendous potential for building value in the pipeline programs. Really, it's clear that that potential, there is a possibility to have a very different return on the investments. We see right now Gubra in a very good position, a strong pipeline. We are in a field of diseases that attract a lot of attention from many players. Now is the time to invest. Really, the core research engine, I mean, it's very sophisticated what we can deliver, those type of studies. That's also what the external customers are coming for. It's really, if it's an external customer or an internal customer, that's how we see. It doesn't make a lot of a difference how we are to deliver on it. It's just adjusting that balance a little bit, prioritizing the internal programs so that we can advance them at even more speed. When it comes to UCN2 and the Amelin, Group Ami, I think many players looking into obesity could have an interest. They're quite different in nature, these two programs. One is with a pretty novel mechanism, the UCN2, whereas the Amelin is more well-known. It's not always the same type of companies that are showing an interest. Sometimes it is. I'm not going to give my guess on which one. I think we are optimistic when it comes to both programs. We do think both of them will have a high potential value. Thank you very much. Your next question is from the line of Thomas Bowers from SEB. Your line is open. Yes, thank you very much for taking my follow-up question here. Just going back to UCN2, I know it's a bit early here, but maybe based on literature publications, would you expect this target to actually have additional benefits aside from the muscle preservation that is so compared to GLP-1, Amelin? I'm primarily thinking about tolerability, safety, other comorbidities that, of course, is in big focus here. Also, second to that, based on the preclinical data, do you see a need to combine this with an Amelin or GLP-1 in order to get to those maybe commercially attractive 15-20% rate reduction levels? Or could you maybe see a scenario where UCN2 can also do that based on it as a standalone? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for those questions. Regarding the first question about the additional indications, from our preclinical animal models, as also mentioned, we have seen beneficial effects in cardiorenal animal models. That is, of course, an opportunity. Right now, we are exploring it within obesity. Whether we need to hit that 15% or if we need to add it on top of GLP-1, I think that depends on the patient segmentation. Right now, we're treating obesity as one disease. It's definitely not. Obesity is a complex disease, so we need many treatments. As also mentioned, it's time to focus on the quality and not just the quantity of the weight loss. UCN2 could be used in combination with the GLP-1-based therapies or other combinations. You can also imagine a patient population, an old, fragile, sarcopenic, obese population that can't lose muscle mass. Here, you only want to induce fat mass loss. That could also be an opportunity. Of course, this is speculating. Makes sense. Great. Thank you very much. Before we continue on to the next question, a reminder for those on the webcast to submit your written questions online. For those on the phone, please press star one to join the queue. Your next follow-up question comes from the line of Martin Pakoye from SEB. Please go ahead. Yes. Martin Parkway, SEB. I actually only have one follow-up question for now at least. Just we have discussed that ever since the IPO of Gubra with respect to the balance between having a CRO and have a DNP business. Are there any kind of collateral damage between running these businesses? Now you are doing somewhat more in the DNP business, taking more molecules into clinic, more on business. Do you think that, in a sense, can scare away some of your clients in the CRO business? Thank you, Martin. No, I don't see at all a risk for scaring clients away. I think we've always been running this hybrid business model, and there is a very long-standing collaboration between Gubra and external clients. It's been even when running this hybrid business model, and it's never been a problem. I don't see any risk there as such related to that one. Was there another part of your question, sorry? Did I answer it? Sorry, Martin, are you there? Did I answer the question? There are no further questions on the conference line. I would like to hand back to the management team for any written questions. Yes. Many of the written questions have been already addressed, but let's take a few of them that are not overlapping. We have one gentleman asking about the UCN2 and what is an efficacy bar in UCN2? How much benefit on muscle preservation would warrant to move this project forward? Yeah. As always, that's an interesting question. I think for now, we are not commenting on expectation and not guiding on this at the moment. Okay. Just trying to figure out how many there's been overlapping. There's also one question regarding the differentiation factors in obesity development. A lot of focus has been on weight loss as such, but I think we would like to speak also about the differentiating factors in obesity treatment. Perhaps, Louise, if you could put a few words to what could a future landscape be in obesity treatment? Yeah. Most certainly. Again, as mentioned previously, obesity is a complex disease. It's not just one disease. Currently, it's not all patients that are being treated ideally. Therefore, we see many opportunities for future obesity treatment. We expect the market to be more segregated so that patients will be treated differently. We think the GLP-1s, of course, induce a nice weight loss, but it's also a possibility to combine with other agents. That could be an Amelin. It could be a UCN2. You could also expect or maybe envision that certain patients you just want to induce fat mass loss. That could be a UCN2. Collectively, there are many opportunities in the future for treating obesity. I think we're just getting started. I think that concludes the questions. Operator, are there more questions on the line? Otherwise, we can conclude the presentation. There are currently no further questions on the conference line. Okay. That was what we had for today. Thank you very much for listening in and looking forward to the next session after we present the next quarter's result. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. Thank you for joining us. You may now disconnect.