Good afternoon, everyone, and a very warm Welcome to Gubra's first ever capital markets event of this type. My name is Adam, Head of Investor Relations at Gubra. On behalf of the entire team, we are very happy that you have decided to spend the next couple of hours with us, whether you are here in person or joining us virtually. Today is, of course, a great opportunity for Gubra to share more about the company, our pipeline, and the ambitions for the years ahead. I think probably many of you have seen the press release that we issued this morning outlining some of the key messages that we intend to discuss in further detail during the presentations today. Just a very quick reminder that, of course, today we will be talking about the company's 2030 strategy. We will be making forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Just a few key words on the agenda for today. We will start with our CEO, Markus Rohrwild, who will walk us through Gubra's strategy and ambitions toward 2030. We will then move into our biotech business unit, including a presentation on our drug discovery platform and overview of the pipeline. Then we will have an external perspective from Professor Juleen Zierath on the importance of skeletal muscle health, both in an obesity setting but also more broadly. Then we will do a deep dive on Gubra's lead proprietary program, GUB-UCN2. After the biotech presentations, we will do our first Q&A session, followed by 30 minutes-ish break. Then in the second half, we will cover Gubra Ventures, our CRO business, and capital allocation strategy. We will then wrap up with another round of Q&A and some concluding remarks. Of course, for those of you here in person, we hope that many of you are able to stay afterward for the reception, where I think there should be a good opportunity to also continue the discussions more informally. All right, so just a brief intro to our first speaker for today. Markus joined Gubra in September last year, bringing more than 25 years of experience in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Before joining Gubra, he held Senior Global Leadership positions at Novartis, including as Head of the Cardiometabolic and Ophthalmology Business Franchises. He has also served as CEO of several biotech ventures within the Roivant Group. Markus holds a PhD in Biological and Biomedical Sciences from Harvard University. With that, I will hand it over to Markus to get us started. Thank you, Adam. Welcome to our R&D event in rainy London. I am really excited about today's event because Gubra is at an inflection point, and we have set ourselves a new ambition. We would like our investors to understand where the company is today, where we aim to be in 2030, and why we are confident that we have a credible path to get there. For the ones, maybe also on the webcast, who do not know Gubra so well, here are a couple of facts. Gubra is a revenue-generating clinical stage bioscience company founded in 2008. Almost 20 years of scientific expertise in metabolic diseases and peptide therapeutics. We have a validated discovery platform, validated through clinical assets and validated through major partnerships with big pharma and biotech, and we also run a very successful growing CRO. Since the IPO in 2023, the company really has shown strong execution. The IPO primarily on the basis of a CRO equity story. Today, we have really demonstrated great potential on the biotech pipeline side. Today, we have four assets in clinical development. We have six active partnerships with pharma and biotech. Our CRO serves 17 out of top 20 pharma companies. In the last two years alone, we have received over $400 million in upfront and milestone payments from our existing partnership. That is a great foundation for a new ambition. I would like to point out our new ambition is based on a very solid foundation, and we are evolving and scaling a successful model. Now, where do we want to go? By 2030, we would like to have 8 - 10 assets in clinical development. We like to bring forward one to two drug development candidates from our own discovery unit every year. It will be active in three therapeutic areas. Of course, metabolic diseases will still play a major role, but we will venture in age-related functional decline, and we will also establish a presence in immunology and inflammation. By 2030, we will also operate two to three ventures and create additional value through our growing and successful CRO. What makes Gubra unique? Gubra's business model is unique. We are working with three synergistic business units. We have biotech, our key value driver, which discovers and develops novel peptide therapeutics towards clinical proof of concept. We have our venture unit, which is investing capabilities in great science adjacent to our core therapeutic areas. We have our CRO serving external customers, but at the same time enabling our internal innovation infrastructure. A unique model, but actually quite simple. We serve a single customer, it is a pharmaceutical industry, and we serve a single industry need. It is a need for new, innovative medicines. How do we do that? We basically focus between drug discovery and clinical proof of concept. That is the sweet spot for Gubra. Our CRO provides scientific expertise, competitive advantage, cash flow to Gubra. Our biotech unit creates new peptide therapeutics, which we partner with pharma companies in return to milestone payments and royalties. Our ventures augment our pipeline via new structures in collaboration with financial investors, but also strategic investors. A point to make, we have multiple ways to create and realize value. In terms of the foundation of our new ambition, I like to point out that our platform, our discovery and development platform is fully validated. Multiple assets have made it into the clinic. We have made very substantial deals, including our deal with AbbVie last year, and we can rely on this platform to bring new innovative molecules into clinical development. Our pipeline today already has multiple high-value assets, and we will continue to grow that pipeline. Today, you will hear a lot about GUB-UCN2, our new long-acting urocortin two analog. It is a great example of a high-value asset, and Thomas will go into that. We have also assembled an excellent leadership team, and I am excited that you will hear from all of them today. Another point I would like to make is the strategic optionality we have today in the company to decide whether we want to bring forward assets a little bit longer towards clinical proof of concept. Strategic partnering is still a very important aspect, but today we have more optionality. This is our leadership team. Let me introduce our speakers today. We have Louise here, our Chief Science Officer, an expert in peptide therapeutics. We have Thomas, a leader in translational medicine and early clinical development. We have Zoë, our Head of Gubra Ventures, a distinguished scientist and company builder. We have Kristian here, our CFO, my right hand, making sure we allocate capital in the right way. Last but not least, we have Trine here today, who has led our CRO business very successfully for many years. Translating this into strategic priorities, a key priority is to build a broader pipeline, more key assets in our pipeline, driving value for the company, GUB-UCN2 certainly our next big thing. Then we will multiply our growth engines. Obesity has been a real fantastic growth engine for us. We have three clinical assets in the pipeline just on obesity, but we want to apply peptide therapeutics to other areas that there's some high medical need and high commercial opportunity, and we believe age-related functional decline is an excellent space we would like to venture in, and we will also establish a presence in immunology and inflammation. On top of that, advancing our technology remains on our forefront. Longer-acting peptides, oral delivery, macrocyclic peptides, and also continuing our great progress in terms of automation, robotics, and use of AI, all with maintaining a high flexibility and optionality in terms of our strategic progress and investment. A quick word on technology, because you will hear more about this later in the talk by Louise, but also on Trine, and maybe you have seen the great images in the other room about brain and muscle imaging. We have been using AI-enabled peptide design for many years, and this is an important part on how fast we can deliver new drug development candidates next to our in-house in vivo capabilities. 3D imaging in our CRO is really cutting edge. It is amazing what we can do today on whole brain imaging and on muscle imaging in conjunction with AI analysis. You can probably imagine a company like us, we are creating tremendous amounts of data sets, and to distill insights out of that, AI is helpful. We are actually an early adopter of AI across the company, and certainly something where we are standing out. I would like to emphasize that our R&D platform is disease-agnostic. We have been very successful in metabolic diseases, but peptides can be applied in multiple areas of biology and indications. We have done a solid analysis on which spaces we feel we can add a lot of value as Gubra and with the capabilities of Gubra. Age-related functional decline seems like a future space of opportunity, and we do have an opportunity to venture into space today with GUB-UCN2 because the biology allows us to also address muscle health, sarcopenia, for example, right? On top of that is the broad space of immunology where peptides can add value, and here we are currently evaluating multiple assets for business development and licensing, and those could be good ones for our first ventures. I am very excited about GUB-UCN2. This biology will build a new therapeutic space. It is a multi-indication asset. It will go way beyond obesity, and it is a major opportunity for Gubra. We invest substantially behind our clinical program, which has just started. You will hear more about this, but also to a very compelling preclinical program, which will make clear that this asset has multiple indications and the potential to become a major asset for the company. A new ambition also needs capital, and you probably know, from Gubra, that we have always been very disciplined in capital allocation, and that essentially will not change. We invest behind evidence. We are really focused around value inflection points. In the context of Gubra, that means clinical proof of concept. Reaching this stage and partnering our assets will create substantial value. An example of that is the long-acting amylin. We have partnered with AbbVie and Thomas and also Kristian will talk about that. We are in a good, solid financial situation. Our current cash position is complemented by the proceeds out of our CRO as well as by the milestone payments coming in the next years from our existing and future partnerships. All of this together will make our ambition possible. Keep in mind, the area we are focusing on, discovery to clinical proof of concept, does not require major capital allocation. We do not invest in expensive phase IIb or phase III. That is usually what our partners contribute. So our goal of creating 8 - 10 assets in clinical development, including our proprietary venture in partnered asset, is not outside our reach, and it is financeable. Also, the fact that we want to have one to two drug development candidates every year from our own pipe drug discovery is within reach. We just have doubled our R&D capacity in Hørsholm with a new building this year, and I am confident that we will continue to bring out new, exciting medicines, adding value with two or three ventures launched and operated in lean asset-centric companies by 2030. And of course, I believe our CRO, our preclinical specialist CRO, it is differentiated. We focus on high-value areas to add value for our pharma and biotech clients, and that will continue to grow and will remain very profitable for us. And with this, I will hand over to Louise. Yeah. Thank you, Markus. My name is Louise, and I will take you through the biotech unit. And the biotech unit is Gubra's core value driver. This is where we take innovative ideas, turn them into differentiated peptide therapeutics, and take them to clinical proof of concept. So filling the pipeline is a core focus for all pharma and biotech companies globally, and many rely on sourcing external innovation. Gubra is part of the solution. Over the years, we have built a strong pipeline of differentiated assets. At the center, there is an AI-driven drug discovery platform, streaMLine. The strength of the platform has consistently been validated through multiple clinical assets and partnerships with leading pharma and biotech companies. At Gubra, we are peptide experts. All the work we do is done using an in-house developed AI-driven drug discovery platform, streaMLine. A core advantage is that the platform combines AI-driven design and data analysis with high throughput wet lab screening of multiple peptide libraries, thousands of peptides. We use multi-parameter optimization. This means that we don't just optimize one parameter at a time, we optimize all parameters simultaneously. In the end, this will enable us to save time and identify better molecules at speed. Over the years, streaMLine has repeatedly generated multiple peptide assets with blockbuster potential. Beyond streaMLine, continued platform innovation is key to make sure that Gubra remains at the forefront of peptide therapeutics. The current toolbox that we have today already provides a strong foundation for pipeline expansion. We have streaMLine at the center, complemented with capabilities within de novo design, multi-agonism, and peptide-peptide conjugate, and we continue to innovate towards 2030. Technologies of particular interest to us is long-acting technologies to enable less frequent dosing, but also macrocyclic peptides, which could be an important enabler and a first step towards oral delivery of peptides. Collectively, this will support our 2030 strategic ambitions of building a broader stage clinical pipeline and increase the number of development candidates that we can generate every year. Many companies have a drug discovery platform. But the core strength of a platform is measured by the quality of the output and whether these assets can repeatedly go into the clinic. Our platform has consistently generated differentiated peptide therapeutics that have advanced into clinical development. This is evident from the pipeline shown here. This pipeline is a direct result of the power and efficiency of a drug discovery platform. It covers both our internal proprietary assets that are not yet partnered and our partnered assets that are being progressed through strong partnerships. Starting with our internal proprietary assets, the most advanced internal asset is the long-acting GUB-UCN2 analog currently in phase I for treatment of obesity, and you will learn much more about that later from Thomas. At the same time, we continue to advance the next wave of future opportunities for Gubra, including new assets within obesity, but also beyond obesity, for example, sarcopenia and cachexia. Turning to the partnered programs, the two most advanced programs are the phase II partnerships within obesity with AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim. Beyond obesity, we also have other highly interesting programs in collaborating with leading biotech companies. We have the Hemab, the Amylyx, and the Camurus collaborations, and they truly illustrate the platform's versatility and opportunity to go beyond obesity and consistently generate differentiated peptide therapeutics across a broad range of therapeutic areas. But now let's take a closer look into some of these assets, starting with obesity. At Gubra, we have been dedicated to treating and understanding obesity since the company's inception, and over the years, we have built deep scientific expertise all the way from discovery to clinical translation. Today, we'll take a closer look at some of these assets, each designed with a differentiated profile compared to current standard of care and with blockbuster potential. But before getting into the data, let's just take a step back and take a closer look at the overall obesity treatment landscape and where the field is heading. Because it's no secret that obesity continues to be a growing global healthcare challenge and there is a well-acknowledged need for novel treatment approaches. By 2035, it's estimated that more than half of the global population will be living with overweight and obesity and at the same time, treatment penetration is really low, with less than 2% receiving active treatment. There is a huge unmet medical need here, and one of the core issues is that today we're actually treating obesity as it's one disease, but it's not. Obesity is a complex, heterogeneous disorder. Different patients have different biologies and different needs. We need more tools in the toolbox if we want to treat all patients efficiently. For the past decades, a core question with obesity treatment have been, can we make patients lose weight? This was the focus for the first generation of obesity treatment, really spearheaded by the first generation of incretin therapeutics, the GLP-1s. The focus for the current wave has been to maximize efficacy and improve tolerability. Here we've seen the introduction of alternative and complementary mode of actions. We've seen amylins, we have dual and triple agonistic concepts emerging, and there have been amazing progress. But it's also well acknowledged that body weight reduction is not just fat mass. Lean mass actually accounts for 25%-40% of the weight lost and lean mass, its muscles, its bones, its internal organs. So it's basically all the tissue that we would ideally like to preserve when we're trying to lose weight. Therefore, we believe that the next wave of obesity treatment will increasingly focus on the quality and not just the quantity. So in other words, improve body composition by maximizing fat mass loss and improve muscle mass and function. That is where the field is going, and Gubra's pipeline is strategically positioned to meet these emerging trends. Across our proprietary and partner portfolio, we now have three clinical stage assets in our pipeline, each addressing obesity from a different biological angle to address important unmet medical needs in the growing obesity treatment landscape. We have ABBV-295 by engaging with the amylin receptor biology. We have the triple agonist by engaging with three complementary mode of actions involved in body weight reduction. And finally, we have an internal long-acting proprietary GUB-UCN2 analog building on a completely novel concept of improving body composition and muscle health. Now, let's take a closer look at some of these assets. Starting with the triple agonist. This is a long-acting, first-in-class triple agonist, and it targets the GLP-1, GIP, and Y2 receptors to engage in three complementary mode of actions involved in body weight reduction. From a biological perspective, this is highly attractive. GLP-1 and GIP are two well-known incretin receptors with well-established effect on glucose and body weight regulation. Adding the Y2 component introduces a non-incretin mode of action, and the Y2 receptor is an important regulator of hunger. So the underlying scientific hypothesis is that by engaging with these three complementary mode of action, we can achieve better body weight control compared to engaging with each receptor individually. The program was discovered in collaboration with Boehringer Ingelheim, and they are now sole responsible for advancing it through the clinic. And after seeing positive phase I data showing a favorable safety profile and a body weight reduction, they have now initiated the phase II study. The study will enroll 300 participants, and primary endpoint is body weight reduction after 42 weeks of treatment. We see this as further validation of the asset's potential and of Gubra's discovery capabilities. Now, let's turn to amylin. Amylin offers an attractive alternative to current standard of care. Amylin is an endogenous peptide hormone released from the pancreatic beta cells, and it has well-established role in glucose and energy regulation. Importantly, amylin is not an incretin. It activates a different set of receptors and mediates the effect by a distinct and complementary mode of action compared to GLP-1s. This means that amylin can be used as standalone treatment or in combination with an incretin. The class of amylin have repeatedly shown to deliver competitive body weight reduction with a favorable tolerability profile. This is evident from these two clinical data sets. On the first set here, you see the phase II data from the phase II trial with eloralintide. Here you can see that eloralintide can produce a competitive body weight reduction. On the other slide, we have the phase III data with cagrilintide. Here you can see that cagrilintide can deliver body weight reduction that is clinically relevant with a favorable safety profile. You can say that's exactly the type of biology we're talking about when we're talking about expanding the toolbox for patients living with obesity and why we find it so compelling in context of ABBV-295. ABBV-295 is a differentiated amylin analog discovered at Gubra, out-licensed to AbbVie. It has a balanced receptor profile on the amylin and calcitonin receptors, just like native amylin. It has a very long half-life of 11 - 12 days. This means that there's the potential to go with every second weekly dosing or even monthly dosing. In addition, it has a delayed time-to-Cmax. This means that there is an almost built-in titration in the molecule, which could potentially explain the favorable tolerability profile. Across the comprehensive phase I studies, ABBV-295 has consistently demonstrated competitive clinical data. Early signs of body weight reduction were seen in the SAD study. Here, one injection with ABBV-295 led to a body weight reduction. This was further substantiated in the six-week MAD study, where six weeks treatment with ABBV-295 led to an almost 8% reduction in body weight. Finally, in the 12/13-week MAD study, ABBV-295 delivered almost 10% reduction in body weight. Across all studies, ABBV-295 were well-tolerated. AEs were predominantly mild, GI-related, and transient. There's another phase Ib study ongoing right now with the ABBV-295. This study will include a bigger proportion of female participants and a higher BMI range, and this is to generate data in a more representative patient population. But now let's take a detailed look at data from the 12/13 week MAD study. This slide shows detailed data from the phase I study presented recently by AbbVie at EASD. What you can see is that ABBV-295 delivers a competitive body weight reduction, dose dependent, of almost 10%. I also want you to pay attention to two of the dose cohorts here, the yellow one and the green one. Here we see competitive body weight reduction with every second weekly dosing or even monthly dosing. And remember that this is in a patient population being predominantly male with a lower BMI range. Key highlights here is that ABBV-295 delivers meaningful body weight reduction of almost 10%. It has a favorable safety profile and the pharmacokinetics supports every second weekly or even monthly dosing. Based on this encouraging data, AbbVie has now initiated the phase II study. This is a comprehensive study enrolling 360 participants, six active treatment groups, and primary endpoint is body weight reduction after 32 weeks of treatment. This is to get the timely data for a potential phase III study, while treatment will continue through week 52. To summarize here, the class of amylins provides an attractive treatment alternative compared to current standard of care. ABBV-295 is a differentiated amylin analog that has the potential to become an important tool in the obesity treatment toolbox. It also exemplifies the Gubra Biotech operating model, where we take a differentiated peptide, take it to clinical proof of concept, and generate further value through strong partners. Beyond obesity, we also have three highly interesting programs in collaboration with leading biotech companies. The Hemab collaboration centers around the long-acting plasmin inhibitor that we have discovered in collaboration with Hemab for treatment of bleeding disorders. Hemab have now initiated the phase I study with this asset. Next, we have the long-acting GLP-1 receptor antagonist, discovered in collaboration with Amylyx for treatment of post-bariatric hypoglycemia. Amylyx is now running the IND-enabling activities with this asset. Finally, we have the PTH analog that is being formulated in Camurus's FluidCrystal technology to generate long-acting treatments for patients with hypoparathyroidism. Collectively, these programs demonstrates the versatility of a drug discovery platform to repeatedly generate differentiated peptide assets across multiple disease areas. You can say that's exactly the versatility that gives us the opportunity to think beyond obesity and to go into new therapeutic areas in the future. To summarize, the biotech is Gubra's core value driver. This is where we take innovative ideas, turn them into differentiated peptide therapeutics, and take them to clinical proof of concept. Over the years, we have built a strong pipeline enabled by an AI-driven drug discovery platform, streaMLine. The strength of the platform has consistently been validated through multiple clinical-stage assets and partnerships with leading pharma and biotech company. We have a competitive obesity pipeline. Across our internal and partner portfolio, we now have three clinical stage assets, each addressing obesity from a different biological angle to address important unmet medical needs in the growing obesity market. Beyond obesity, we also have three other highly interesting programs with strong partners. These programs demonstrate the versatility of a drug discovery platform and the opportunity to go beyond obesity. That's exactly what we want to do. Use the same underlying discovery capabilities to repeatedly generate differentiated peptide therapeutics and build a much broader clinical stage pipeline with time. With that, thank you for your attention, and I'm happy to turn over to Juleen, who will talk about the importance of skeletal muscle health. All right. Thanks a lot, Louise. My background over the years really is on skeletal muscle health, and I think my role here is to do some frame setting and to give you some of the physiology and maybe the molecular biology on why muscle health is important to think about. Muscle is really one of your largest organs in your whole body, and it is incredibly important for maintaining metabolic health. So it is a major site of glucose disposal and insulin sensitivity. It is a key organ in regulating substrate metabolic homeostasis, and it communicates with other tissues through muscle-derived signals. I will mention some later, but they are called myokines. So it is a real communicator to the whole body. Muscle is really important for physical function. It is important for locomotion. It provides strength and power for everyday movements. It is critical for mobility, for balance, for independence for people throughout the lifespan. Impaired muscle function is associated with poorer physical performance. If we think about the lifespan, muscle mass and strength is important and declines with aging. So we see this in the clinic. If you can maintain muscle mass and muscle function, that promotes resilience and independence in individuals as they are aging. We also see that there is a rising incidence of obesity, and muscle function and muscle health is really compromised with obesity. So muscle health extends well beyond preserving lean mass. I am just going to give you some examples about what is muscle health. If you look at a cross-section of the thigh, you can see the muscle in the pink colors. You see the bone, you see the fat surrounding the leg. We try to analyze muscle for its quality. How much muscle is in that leg? We can do that by measuring the mass of muscle through non-invasive techniques, DEXA, for example. We can look at the quality of muscle, not only the mass, but the quality, what is the condition of the muscle. We look at the architecture, and we can do that again through non-invasive tools. We can look at something called myosteatosis, how much fat is coming into the muscle itself. How many fibrosis molecules are around the muscle that compromise its quality. We also measure muscle function. What can the muscle do? That can be measured physiologically by looking at strength and physical performance. This is done by looking at gait speed, grip strength, and other tests that we can do. It is not just about the amount of muscle we have, it is about the quality and the function of muscle. These are important things to think about when we think about targeting muscle. If we look at obesity and aging, both of those factors can compromise muscle health. Again, muscle is your largest organ in your body. It is really important. With obesity, one in four people globally are going to be expected to be living with obesity. I mentioned already this myosteatosis. As people have increased visceral adiposity, they also have an infiltration of fat into their muscle that compromises the function of muscle. It impairs the muscle metabolism, it impairs insulin sensitivity, and it leads to this cardiometabolic syndrome. It reduces the quality of muscle and the function, the performance that people have based on their reduced muscle quality. With aging, we see that one in six people globally are aged. They are going to be either equal to or more than 60 by 2035, which is I am already 60, so I am in that category now. What we worry about with aging is something called sarcopenia. With aging, there is a progressive loss of muscle mass. There is a decline that we all feel in strength and power as we age, and there is reduced physical function and resilience. Both of those aspects are really important when we think about muscle health. With the weight loss that we are seeing, muscle health may be already impaired before significant weight loss. Let me dial into some of this weight loss. It has been a revolution in the field to see the therapeutics that have been helping people with obesity lose weight. They lose a lot of weight. Weight loss is not always fat loss, and that is one of the concerns that we have in the clinic. People have been able to lose between 60% and 75% of fat mass, which is extraordinary. At the same time, they are losing 25% - 40% of lean mass, and that is a cause for concern. What we in the clinic want to try to do is preserve lean mass, and that is the muscle, the body water, the organs, and other lean tissues. It is a balance. Not all of weight loss is going to be the kind of weight loss we want to achieve. We want to lose the fat mass, we want to preserve the lean mass. Here are some examples. I just got back from the EASD meeting, and this slide was everywhere. Everybody is talking about the weight loss we see with the incretins. This is some data from the SURMOUNT-4 study with the tirzepatide. You have all seen this curve. It is remarkable. People are losing 20% of body mass. As long as they stay on the drug, they do quite well, and they keep the body mass down. We are seeing that if people come off the drug, and this is only after 36 weeks of treatment, people come off the drug and they stop treatment, they start to gain back body mass. Two-thirds of the weight loss is regained within a year. The cause for concern is that if you look over here, the weight loss, 67% loss of fat mass, 33% loss of lean mass. The cause for concern is that when individuals are regaining weight, they are gaining disproportionately. More fat mass is gained. When they come off the drug, they gain mass. The mass they gain is fat mass, and they are not gaining back the lean mass. Cause for concern. The long-term studies in older individuals also suggest that the fat may be regained more readily than the lean tissue. How can we put a brake on that? Two big questions in the field are, with the weight loss therapies, can we further improve the quality of weight loss? Can improvements in muscle health translate into meaningful functional benefits? We want to lose the fat mass, but we want to preserve the lean mass, or maybe even build the lean mass. All right, so there are multiple biological approaches that are being explored today, and I will give you some kind of outlines about some of these approaches. And in the next slide, I'll go into some of the molecular mechanisms for what some of these approaches are trying to achieve. We've heard a lot about myostatin, which is a myokine. It's something that's released from muscle, and it talks to muscle. Its normal job is to promote muscle. Its important job is to really function on muscle growth and regulation. Myostatin inhibitors can really relieve the inhibitory signals on muscle growth. They can increase muscle mass. They can reduce fat mass. But today, it's not been consistently translated into improvements in physical function and better physical outcomes on the muscle function. Another approach is inhibin beta E signaling, and this primarily works on the fat tissue. It's called a hepatokine. It's something secreted from the liver. It talks to the fat, and this approach can release a brake on adipose tissue lipolysis. It can reduce fat while preserving lean mass. But also like the myostatin inhibitors, this approach has not shown efficacy in improving physical function today. The other approach we've heard a little bit from Louise is the urocortin or the UCN analogs, and this is a strategy to improve muscle protein turnover. So you can promote protein synthesis, you can reduce protein breakdown, and this is one way to maintain muscle mass. There's a potential to preserve or increase muscle mass, and this has been shown to improve muscle function, and it's also been shown to have some cardiorenal benefits, and I'll show you some data for that. So these emerging approaches can improve body composition through many different mechanisms. If we look at the myostatin approach, I mentioned this is something that's called a myokine. It's released from muscle. It acts on muscle. Normally what it does, its normal job, is to decrease muscle protein synthesis and increase protein degradation. This approach is to use antibodies to block myostatin, to block the myostatin molecule, and it inhibits the receptor binding, and it alters the signaling. What it will then do is increase muscle protein synthesis and decrease protein degradation. It's a way in which one can maintain muscle mass. There are some clinical approaches already out there, myostatin inhibitors, where bimagrumab is a molecule already been tested in clinical trials, 48-week trial, where this therapy has been shown to lead to a modest reduction in body weight, a 25% loss in total fat mass, and at the same time, there's a very modest improvement in lean mass, and this is the blue bars. If you compare that to SEMA, you can see that it's very much equal in terms of its body weight loss and its effect on weight loss, fat mass loss. But SEMA causes a loss in total lean mass. So the idea here is that the bima is one approach to be able to lose fat mass and, at the same time, have a weight neutral for lean mass. I think what's very intriguing is that when individuals are getting a combination dose of bima and SEMA together, they have a pretty striking change in body weight. They have an even more robust change in total fat mass, but they do not have a change in lean mass. So it's one way in which one can dial down fat mass and dial up potentially or maintain lean mass. So body composition can be improved, but in this case, the functional benefits on the preservation of muscle mass have not been convincingly demonstrated. The other approach I mentioned earlier is this inhibin beta E, which is a molecule that is secreted from the liver, and it talks to the fat cells. So it's a way of communicating between liver and fat cells. And its normal job then is to be released from the liver, talk to the receptors on the fat cells. And normally what it does is it down-regulates lipolysis, and it increases fat storage. And the approach here would be to block the production of inhibin beta E, block it in the liver so that it cannot talk to the fat cell, and it would put a brake on the fat cells to increase lipolysis and decrease fat storage. So it's a way in which one can then target weight management independent of food intake. And this is an experiment where there's been an siRNA approach that targets the liver that can silence the production of inhibin beta E. And what it does then in a time-dependent analysis where it's a one-dose treatment, you've got three months and six months treatment, and it's been shown to lead to a reduction in visceral fat mass. And this is the fat mass that really one wants to target in the clinic, the body fat. There's a reduction in total fat mass, and there is an increase in lean mass, and they're body weight neutral. That's because you're losing fat and you're increasing lean mass. And so this is one approach to improve body composition, but the effects, again, on physical function remain to be established. So these are two approaches that are already being tested. Urocortin analogs are unique in that they target not only one organ, they can target muscle and fat. And these peptides are physiologically produced from multiple organs in the body. And this approach with these analogs is to target both muscle and fat. And targeting muscle, the receptors are highly expressed in the muscle cells. They promote anabolic or growth-promoting effects in muscles, and they improve metabolic signaling. And there's preclinical evidence in animal models for preserved or even increased muscle mass, and there's preclinical evidence for improved muscle function. And that is something we don't see with the other approaches, so it really does something more. And it affects the adipose tissue. So the urocortin analogs can regulate the fat metabolism. They promote lipolysis. They basically burn fat out of the fat cells. They lead to energy mobilization, and there's preclinical evidence for a preferential fat mass reduction. And as I mentioned earlier, this is a tissue effect that goes beyond appetite regulation. So this approach is interesting because it holds promise for fat loss with preserved or even increased muscle mass. And I'll give you some examples. So these are preclinical studies. They're all done in rodents. And the first two panels, the left and the middle, are a study actually from my lab, and they're in a mouse model where the mice have been fed with a high-fat diet for weeks. So they become obese, and they become insulin resistant. And these mice are either sedentary, or they're given wheels, and they can run in a cage. And we found that when we treat the animal with the UCN peptides, they reduce their fat mass. In the middle panel, we take out a muscle from the animal and we weigh it, and we can show that with the UCN treatment, they have an increase in muscle mass. In a study where we have done some casting, where we have immobilized animals and their muscles atrophy, we can show that there is a loss of muscle mass in the blue bars. If we immobilize the animal in the green and treat them with just vehicle, they have atrophy in the muscle. If we treat them with the UCN peptides, they maintain their muscle mass even though they are immobilized. This would have some implications for bed rest or sarcopenia, that UCN2 peptides could preserve muscle force with immobilization. The other thing that this approach has beyond the myostatin inhibitors and the inhibin beta E is that they have cardiorenal protective qualities to them. There are preclinical and clinical studies that provide evidence to suggest this. If we look at the cardiovascular effects, this has been demonstrated in humans, there have been effects on cardiac output, left ventricle ejection factor effect, and there is reduced systemic and peripheral vascular resistance, and this has been seen in even healthy people and people with heart failure. The renal effects have been shown in preclinical models where there is improved creatinine clearance, a reduced renal injury and inflammation, and these effects may be both direct and they have because of the hemodynamics that we can see. I will dial into some of the primary data that supports these assertations. This is the cardiovascular parameters. It is a study in humans where people have been infused with urocortin 2 analogs, and you have got the control in the blue, and the dark is the urocortin 2 analog that has been infused into these people, and it shows that it improves cardiac output. It shows it improves blood pressure. In an ovine model, it has been shown that there is an improvement in urine sodium excretion and also kidney markers of inflammation. Fibrosis are also improved by these relatively short-term exposures to urocortin 2 analogs. Just the take-home message here is that, first of all, muscle health is incredibly important for physical function and healthy aging. Weight loss, it is not all the same. Chronic weight management should extend beyond weight loss per se, and we should focus on preservation of lean body mass, looking for healthier body composition and function. The urocortin biology offers potential across not only body composition, muscle function, but also the cardiorenal health parameters. That is a little bit of the science behind the molecules. With that, I am going to turn over to Thomas, and you will probably dive deep into your portfolio here. Thank you, Juleen. My name is Thomas. I am Chief Medical and Development Officer at Gubra, and I would like to discuss our development program, GUB-UCN2, and I would also like to highlight why we believe that GUB-UCN2 could be the next potential value driver for the company. We have just heard obesity treatment is really entering a new era. Incretin therapeutics have demonstrated how much weight loss we can really achieve with pharmacotherapy. However, we do see a substantial reduction in fat mass, which is desired, but also a reduction in lean mass, including skeletal muscle mass, which is undesired. The next opportunity is to improve what patients lose, what they keep, and how they function. GUB-UCN2 has the potential to address exactly that gap by improving body composition and potentially also improving physical function. Today, I will explain the preclinical data set supporting the value proposition. I will talk about how we intend to translate that into the clinic and how we view the broader indication expansion potential in order to maximize the value of GUB-UCN2. The presentation will follow the three areas summarized on this slide. I will first briefly summarize the mechanism of action and walk you really through the preclinical data set. I will then talk about how we translate the findings into the clinic and how we test what parts of the biology really materialize in a clinical setting. Finally, I will come back how we use this data set along with additional clinical and preclinical data to think about further indication expansion. Let us start off with the mechanism of action and the preclinical data set. You have seen this slide before. Native urocortin 2 signals through a receptor called CRHR2, and the peripheral biology involves the target tissue that is really relevant for the therapeutic purpose we are developing GUB-UCN2 for. Specifically, adipose tissue and muscle tissue. In the adipose tissue, UCN2 can reduce fat mass. In the muscle tissue, UCN2 can drive anabolic processes, inhibit catabolic processes, and drive oxidative metabolism. That together is the biological rationale for developing GUB-UCN2 in obesity with the purpose of improving body composition. The biology extends beyond adipose tissue and muscle into the heart and into the kidneys, where we have seen that UCN2 can improve cardiac function, can drive natriuresis and diuresis in the kidney. That in itself is the biological rationale for thinking about indication expansion opportunities into the cardiorenal space. On the left-hand side of the slides, you see the key product characteristics of our UCN2 analog, which we are calling GUB-UCN2. It is a 38 amino acid peptide, which is highly potent and highly selective for the CRHR2 receptor, and it is formulated for a convenient once-weekly subcutaneous administration. The development ambition is derived from the biology and from what we would like to achieve for the patients, driven by medical need. We would like to start off with looking at healthy body composition. With the question, can we really reduce fat mass and improve muscle mass? Improvement of muscle mass is a good thing to do, but the next question, of course, is does it translate into improved muscle function? Into improved physical function and improved muscle strength, and that is the second aspect we are going to address. The third question is: how are we going to use GUB-UCN2 in the clinic? Is it going to be used as a monotherapy in combination with available obesity treatments, or potentially as a follow-on treatment once patients have achieved substantial weight loss? This is what we are going to address both in the preclinical as well as in the clinical setting. Finally, I spoke about it briefly, how do we lift the full value of GUB-UCN2 by looking into indication expansion opportunities. Across all these indications, we are looking at once-weekly subcutaneous administration of GUB-UCN2. Now let me dive into the preclinical data set. We have evaluated GUB-UCN2 in two species, in mice and in rats. We used obesity models based on high-fat diets for both species. What is really common across species, I'll walk you through the data in a second, is that we can indeed improve body composition. We do see a substantial reduction of fat mass and preservation or increase of lean mass. The first data set on this slide shows data in mice that were treated for four weeks with GUB-UCN2. You do see on the left-hand side that we see a dose-dependent reduction in body weight. You see in the middle graph that this body weight reduction is predominantly driven by a reduction in fat mass while we maintain lean mass in these animals. Body weight reduction and reduction of fat mass came with additional improvement of other metabolic parameters. We have an improvement in glucose metabolism. You see on the left-hand side here, glycosylated hemoglobin A1C, and that goes down, as does triglycerides and total cholesterol. This is also a favorable metabolic profile that we are achieving with GUB-UCN2 treatment. We have also evaluated GUB-UCN2 in rats, and this slide summarizes data from a 12-week treatment study. Monotherapy was evaluated and compared with treatment with semaglutide and the combination treatment. The mono treatment is depicted here by the green bars, and you can see in the middle and on the right-hand side that we do achieve a substantial reduction in fat mass, and we do see a substantial increase in lean mass. The overall effect was weight neutral with GUB-UCN2 as a monotherapy. If you look at semaglutide, which are the purple bars, we do see the expected weight reduction. Yeah. What we see in contrast to GUB-UCN2 is a reduction in fat mass, but also a slight reduction in lean mass. If we now combine both treatments, we can maintain the weight reduction that we have seen with semaglutide in the combination, but we can favorably modify the body composition by further decreasing fat mass and increasing lean mass. This is exactly the desired profile that we would be looking for. We have now also thought about what are other potential combination partners for GUB-UCN2, and we specifically looked at tirzepatide and an amylin analog. The next slide shows the data from a treatment experiment using tirzepatide as a comparator and as a combination partner. GUB-UCN2 monotherapy again is depicted by the green bars, where we see exactly the same effect here already after four weeks of treatment. And we do see that we have a substantial reduction in fat mass and increase in lean mass with a weight neutral effect. Tirzepatide behaves as expected. It reduces body mass, these are the aqua bars, but it also reduces beyond fat mass, lean mass. And if you again combine, and these are the dark blue bars, we do see that we can maintain body weight but further reduce fat mass and increase muscle mass. Exactly the same pattern with an amylin and cagrilintide was used in this specific experiment. Again, a treatment period of four weeks with the same findings for GUB-UCN2 monotherapy. Amylin therapy alone resulted in the expected body weight reduction and again, we did observe a reduction in fat mass and a reduction in lean mass with the combination. We got a much better body composition in that we could further reduce the fat mass and increase the lean mass. So this basically tells us that GUB-UCN2 has a favorable effect on body composition, and it does so as monotherapy as well as a combination partner with available obesity treatments or those that are in development. The next question, of course, is, and Juleen already touched on that, do we actually have an effect on muscle volume and muscle mass itself? The data I have shown you here are lean mass of which skeletal muscle is only part of. So we use Gubra's 3D imaging technology to analyze the muscle volume in the hind limb of these rats. And Trine will speak about the technology in a little bit more detail later on. But the processing involves a clearing of the tissue, a light sheet imaging, building of a hind limb atlas, and then AI based analysis of the skeletal muscle volume of the hind limb. And you can see on the right hand side how the analysis looks like. And here we very clearly demonstrate that, yes, muscle volume drives, at least in part, the increase in the lean mass that I have shown you on the previous slides. So we have now thought about how could GUB-UCN2 be used in the clinic, right? What happens if you discontinue semaglutide, for example, switch to UCN2 or add UCN2 at a later point in time in patients that have been pretreated. And the preclinical setting is reflected here on this slide. So we have conducted a seven-week study where we put obese animals on a monotherapy with GUB-UCN2, these are the green line, and with semaglutide, this is the purple line. The vehicle treated animals are the gray line. These are basically the control groups for the experiment. And you can appreciate that with semaglutide, we did observe the expected body weight reduction, but it came really at the expense of a loss of lean mass. So we have now switched therapy after three weeks into the experiment, and this is what the vertical dotted line presents on the graphs. First we discontinued semaglutide. So as expected, we did observe an increase in body weight all the way back to vehicle treated animals. And interestingly, that gain in body weight was almost exclusively driven by an increase in fat mass. You can very nicely see that in the middle graph. If we are now switching from semaglutide to UCN2, that means we still discontinue semaglutide, put the animals on UCN2, we see exactly the same weight curve, but the body composition is quite different. The body composition is now driven by a maintenance of the low fat mass that we have achieved in the first three weeks, and the weight gain is almost exclusively driven by lean mass. It is quite the contrary than what we observed with discontinuation of semaglutide. If we now add UCN2 to semaglutide at a later point in time, we observe the same favorable effect on body composition that we have observed when we initiate both treatments at the same time. We again see a further reduction in fat mass and a further increase in lean mass. Again, the same question, is the increase in lean mass we are seeing in this experiment also driven by increase in muscle mass? The answer to that is yes. You see the absolute weights of the different muscles of the animal, the EDL muscle, soleus, and tibialis anterior across all muscles. We did observe an increase in muscle mass. With this preclinical data set, we have shown that GUB-UCN2 drives a favorable body composition with reduced fat mass, increase in lean mass. We have shown that that increase in lean mass is at least in part driven by an increase in muscle mass, which is desired. We have demonstrated that it works as a monotherapy, that it works in conjunction with obesity treatments, and that it works as a follow-on treatment. With that, we have now moved the program forward into clinical development. We have now started a very comprehensive phase I/IIa clinical trial to look at safety, tolerability, PK, and also relevant pharmacodynamic endpoints. It is, as I said, a comprehensive trial. We are targeting an enrollment of approximately 188 participants. These will be either healthy participants in the SAD portion of the trial or participants with obesity in part two and three of the trial. We will test GUB-UCN2 as a monotherapy and as an adjunct to an incretin-based therapy, and we will be looking at body composition and body function endpoints. This is how the trial is phased. We are currently in the SAD portion of the trial in healthy participants. The key data set we are getting out of this is safety tolerability and PK as well as the dose selection for the MAD portion of the trial. The data are expected to read out in the first half of 2027. We are then moving on into an obese population in the MAD portion of the trial. Here, the participants will be treated for 6 weeks, and we are going to collect initial data on body composition in the MAD portion of the trial to understand if we get the directional changes that we have seen in preclinical species. The data set from the MAD trial is expected end of 2027, early 2028. Subsequent to that, we will be moving into a 16-week treatment arm where we have multiple populations and multiple treatment regimens, and this will allow us to do a full assessment of the effect on body composition as well as muscle function endpoints. How are we going to assess body composition and muscle function in the clinical trial? We will be utilizing MRI imaging for body composition assessments. Juleen has already pointed out multiple technologies that are available to actually do that. We have decided to go with an MRI because we can really distinguish between muscle volume and other components that are part of the lean mass and that are basically summarized in a lean mass readout with DEXA scan. We will be looking at subcutaneous adipose tissue, we will be looking at visceral adipose tissue, we will be looking at fat-free tissue and at muscle volume. The muscle volume is given here by the red color. We then go one step deeper and also image the thigh muscles. Juleen also explained the reason for that, because it is not only muscle volume that drives function, it is also muscle quality. With an MRI technology, we can really look into intra and intermuscular fat and look at potential improvement of muscle quality as a contributor to a functional impact. The functional assessments will include two buckets. One bucket, you might be familiar, is called a short physical performance battery, and that includes three tests that we are doing. It is gait speed, sit to stand, and balance. These are tests that look at very different domains, mostly related really to the lower body because that is very important for movement and independence, which includes mobility, lower limb function, and static balance. The second bucket will be a set of tests where we look at muscle strength, and we will be performing very standardized knee extension tests where we can evaluate lower limb static and dynamic strength. This all in all will allow us to fully assess what biology from the preclinical species is translatable into the clinic. It will also guide us in terms of further progressing the asset into other indications. As I indicated, obesity will be our entry point for GUB-UCN2, but we are interested in expanding the indication potentially beyond obesity. This slide, again, you have seen it before, puts GUB-UCN2 into the context of our therapeutic area strategy. It sits along with the partnered assets within the core obesity TA, but we really view that as a transition asset that based on functional muscle functional assessments will really allow us to determine if we can drive forward into conditions that are characterized by muscle wasting and loss of muscle function. One of those indications that we are very interested in is sarcopenia. The rationale for sarcopenia really follows from the relationship between muscle decline and loss of independence. As you can see here on the left-hand side of the slide, as we age, we lose muscle function. Muscle mass declines by 10% per decade in individuals age 50 and older. This is quite a lot. At some point we arrive at a threshold where daily activities become challenging and individuals potentially lose independence. This is what we would like to avoid. Demographics, as depicted in the middle of the slide, increases the need of the scale, and you see that by 2060, it is projected that we have 20% of the population in an age group that might actually be affected by sarcopenia. So we are really talking about a large population. The population is already pretty large. Now, if you look on the right-hand side of the slide, we have prevalence of 10%-27% already now in individuals 60 years of age and older, and that extends well beyond obesity. We see that in individuals with a number of underlying diseases like chronic kidney disease, heart failure, COPD, and cancer cachexia. So, it is really a growing population and across multiple disease settings. Why is sarcopenia important? If you are looking at this slide, it nicely summarizes a meta-analysis across 35 studies looking at really the impact of sarcopenia on older individuals. So we have almost 99,000 older individuals that drive this analysis. Here we see a 2.8-fold higher risk of disability with sarcopenia and an approximately twofold higher risk of falls, fractures, and death. There is quite a significant medical need, and this is basically the basis for the value proposition of GUB-UCN2 in sarcopenia. High unmet medical need associated with an aging population, with an increasing and aging population, and therapeutic white space with no approved therapies currently. We are looking at lifestyle management mainly in this population. This slide puts GUB-UCN2 into the broader development vision we have for the asset. We start off with body composition, which is very relevant for obesity, either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with available obesity treatments. Clinical data demonstrating functional benefit would also enable us to move into muscle wasting conditions such as sarcopenia, as I indicated before. We have also spoken about the general mechanism of action and the biology beyond adipose tissue and muscle. In particular, the cardiorenal space is of interest, and here we could envision GUB-UCN2 playing a role in improving cardiac and renal function and also improving maladaptive remodeling that we do see in a number of underlying cardiorenal diseases. Long term, GUB-UCN2 could be utilized in the context of healthy aging to preserve mobility and prolong independence. Each of these indications require their own clinical evidence and their own clinical development program. What is important for us now really is to focus on obesity, deliver the initial clinical data set, understand the translatability of the biology, and that will guide how we embark into indication expansion for GUB-UCN2. Let me leave you with three key messages. Number one, we have a very compelling preclinical data set that demonstrates that GUB-UCN2 really has the desired impact on body composition in multiple relevant obesity models. Number two, we have set up a comprehensive clinical program to test the question at hand, which is: do we see the same improvement in body composition with an effect on physical function in the clinic? Number three, data from the clinical program will guide how we further think about the development of GUB-UCN2 beyond obesity and how we intend to realize the full commercial potential of the asset. With that, I would like to thank you for your attention. I would like to hand it back over to Adam to moderate the Q&A session. Thank you. Yes. Thanks a lot, Thomas. We will now invite Markus, Louise, and Juleen back onto the stage, and then we can open the floor for questions focusing on the biotech presentations. Of course, more than welcome also to ask questions of broader strategic character as addressed by Markus in the opening remarks. Please, if you have any questions, raise your hand. We have a handheld mic that we can pass along so virtual attendees can also hear what we are saying. Maybe this is just out. Yes, we will start here over with Thomas. Go ahead. Thank you very much. Thomas from SEB. A few questions on UCN2 maybe. First of all, we recently saw Roche also entering the space. Can you maybe highlight a bit on your understanding on your compound compared to the one from Hanmi? Receptor selectivity, PK, whatever you have of understandings here. Then maybe second question, Thomas, you just showed the broad base increase in muscle volume across the rat leg, I think it was. Do you have any data on cardiac muscle volume as well? Is there any, say, observation, any signs of cardiac hypertrophy, for example, here? Anything we should be concerned about? Also in addition to that, maybe you do highlight the potential in the cardiorenal setting. But does this maybe also highlight that there could potentially be a risk in cardiovascular risk for healthy CV? Just focusing on the weight loss, but in patients without any cardiorenal comorbidities. Can I ask another one or stop there? Let us start with those. Yeah, I can. Yeah. Yeah, I can maybe start off with addressing the questions, Thomas. With regards to the Hanmi compound and competitor compounds, your first question, right? I think first of all, it really shows that there is really substantial interest in the community and in the industry, in the biology of UCN2. Yeah, and we have heard about why that is. It is really a very interesting and very differentiated biology. At this point in time, the data that are available are very limited on all the different assets. And there are currently no clinical data available. We have multiple clinical programs ongoing. And we will really need to wait and compare the clinical readouts in order to determine whether there is room for a differentiation across the assets. With the data that are available this is a challenge. With regards to your questions around effects on the heart. We have very closely looked at cardiac effects. And that included basically pharmacodynamic assessments in relevant disease models and included assessments like the one that you were specifically asking for in our tox program. And from both perspectives, I can see that from a tox perspective, we have no concern with regards to cardiac hypertrophy. And the contrary is actually the case. If you are looking at disease models, for example, ischemic heart failure due to LAD ligation, and we have spoken about the data before, then we actually do see an improvement in left ventricular function that is similar or even better than what can be achieved with standard of care. So there is really a case to be made to really develop GUB-UCN2 in cardiovascular indications. I think that addresses probably. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. This is Romy from Kempen. I have two questions. The first is that there is some evidence out there of differences of acute and chronic effects of corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor two agonism, potentially due to receptor desensitization. So I was wondering how you are thinking about the durability of effects on adipose tissue and the energy mobilization that you were talking about earlier with sustained UCN2 exposure. Have you also looked at potential desensitization preclinically? My next question on strategic on the 2030 strategy. You mentioned you have a strategic optionality there. As you expand your preclinical pipeline, looking at 8 - 10 assets. How do you envisage continuing to partner most programs around phase II development, or do you see Gubra retaining greater ownership maybe to capture more downstream value? Thanks. Oh, Thomas, let's start with the first UCN2 related question, and perhaps Markus, you can Yeah, I can start off. Louise, you might want to chime in. It's indeed correct that there are effects that are different if you compare chronic and acute administration, in particular, if you're looking at insulin sensitivity, at glucose metabolism. We have not really looked very specifically at receptor desensitization. However, we have compared really the effect of different treatment regimens and treatment durations. If you compare that, we see that pharmacodynamics is building up with continued treatment duration, which may suggest that this effect is really realizable with chronic administration. Yeah. I think you covered really, really nicely, Thomas, and you can say you can draw some parallels with regards to a GIP receptor antagonism and an agonism that also to some extent can be solved in the same pharmacodynamic readout. As Thomas allude to here, we have explored UCN2 treatment for many, many, many weeks in the preclinical animal species and have seen consistent competitive results here. In with regards to your second question, I think it will really depend on the asset. For some assets, clinical proof of concept may be achieved with phase Ib assets. For others, will be phase IIa. For some assets, we may believe we have all the capabilities we need to drive it to such point. For some assets, a potential partner may be really valuable to take an asset earlier. So we will do those decisions asset-specific, understanding what is our core contribution and how much value we can generate in-house and what's the best for Gubra. I don't want to generalize that we will develop all assets to make it phase IIb ready, because all different indications have specific phase 1 programs in terms of how much patients would I need, how much capital do I need to invest, what's the risk-benefit to this particular target in biology. We will make those trade-off decisions, but for the ones we can do it, we will probably do it because then, of course, the value inflection, what I get at the partnering stage will be higher. I think Rune has a hand over here. Yeah. Thank you. Rune from DNB Carnegie. Also on UCN2, first of all, obesity pricing has come down. UCN2 will be an add-on. What do you see the willingness to pay for UCN2 on top of GLP-1? Then back to potential partner discussions. With UCN2, you clearly have a roadmap for the opportunity, but in the past, you have partnered and then fully outlicensed the assets to the partner, and they decide what happens afterwards. With this roadmap, should we be thinking that you would take a stake, like a 50/50 partnership on UCN2, or are you still willing to fully outlicense and then maybe not get the potential that you outlined here today? Yeah. Those are two very good questions. I think pricing in a market which is more becoming a generic market over time plays an important role. People will pay for outcomes, right? Obesity is a highly consumer-driven market, and people will pay for performance. In the combinations, if you look at other areas like cardiometabolic diseases, type two diabetes, respiratory, the prices have come down since the combination, right? That will probably also happen in obesity context, but the innovation piece will always be priced at a level where you can still have substantial value, but that is a driver. I think in terms of what will be the actual partnership depends on the partner. What does the partner bring? What can we still bring into the development piece where we can add value? Some of the partners we have on the triple agonist on the amylin are very good. AbbVie is an excellent partner, driving multiple programs, multiple ideas forward, exploring different combinations. They are all in on the asset. I feel very comfortable that AbbVie is driving the program. Similar also on the BI side, very keen on driving the program forward as fast as possible because it's a unique triple, first-in-class triple. I think for those two partners, I would not worry. If we find the right partner, I will probably continue to give them the control over the development program. It also depends on what stage of capabilities in later stage development we are building over time. I think at the point today, the deal structure, the partnership structure we have with AbbVie is probably a good blueprint within the timeline of our strategic plan until 2030. Morten, go ahead. Thank you. Morten Larsen, ABG Sundal Collier. First to Juleen, thanks for the presentation. Obesity is a super volatile and fast-moving market, and UCN2 may be on the market in five to seven years. How would you see the role of, let's say, a standalone project or monotherapy UCN2 in that market in five to seven years? What combination products would you optimally see this teamed up with? A part of it, I think, depends on the staging of where people are in their journey of weight loss and maintenance. I think it would be important to have it early. People who are losing weight rapidly tend to be losing more lean mass, and you would want to mitigate that as early as you could. I would probably want to have that early when you start to dial down the weight loss. I think females tend to lose a lot more lean mass. You could think about the sex and also the age of the individual, where they are in their weight loss journey. I know I am not being very specific and that is what you want, but I think it is going to be more of this precision health, but not to the actual individual, but maybe to classifications of individuals and phenotypes in that journey of weight loss. I am a muscle physiologist, so my bias is that I think there is a big role for it, not only with obesity, but with cachexia, injury, and aging along the way. Okay. Second to Markus. You talk about 8-10 clinical stage asset. Just to clarify, that is the absolute number you are going to target. It is not the total number you are going to come in and if anyone drops off, right? Sorry, maybe you clarify again the question. Okay. 8- 10 clinical assets by 2030. That is the total number in 2030. What happens if someone drops off or is pruned out? Yeah. This is also A lower number? Yeah, it is a total number. Of course, some of those development programs, it is not sure that will continue, but I think this is why we are also giving a range of 8- 10. We have four today. With our productivity internally, plus selective opportunities from the ventures, I am fairly confident that 8 - 10 is realistic. Okay. Obesity, super volatile and fast-moving market. You already have three obesity assets out of those 8-10. You want to lean even more into obesity, but as you said, super volatile market with prices coming down hard. Is this really the right way to go to be even more obesity-focused long term? Well, we talked a little bit about expanding our TA focus to age-related functional decline and immunology and inflammation. Those are our markets which are rapidly developing, so there is great opportunity for us. So those 8-10 assets will certainly not be in obesity alone. But given we have three already, so we will still have a substantial part of our value generation also by 2030. But we are diversifying our pipeline, and we also are lucky to have a disease agnostic R&D platform so we can diversify. Yeah. Thanks a lot, Morten. Rajan has a question. Thanks for the question. It is Rajan Sharma from Goldman Sachs. So firstly, just on the use of MRI versus DEXA scan in the phase I for GUB-UCN2. I know it is quite early in the field, but has there been any discussion with regulators around that and some agreement there? Just wondering that, as this field emerges, if regulatory bodies and potentially academia move towards DEXA scan versus MRI, are you kind of wrong-footed there? So just wanting to understand the level to which you have had those conversations. Secondly, AbbVie are running a combination trial of ABBV-295 with lutikizumab in HS. Conscious it is not your trial and you will not be leading it, but you know amylin pretty well, so just wanted to understand your take on the rationale for running that trial. I have a third, but maybe I will do that afterwards, if that makes sense. Let us start with the first two. Perhaps, Thomas, I do not know if you can start with the- I can start. MRI versus DEXA and any regulatory input, and then we can move afterwards to Louise on ABBV-295. Yeah. It is a good question. DEXA has been the tool of choice for a long time to look at body composition, and look at fat mass, look at lean mass. The challenge is that we now have novel mechanisms that are being explored that target a very specific compartment within lean mass. The assessment of lean mass in itself is not sufficient any longer to determine if we have the desired pharmacodynamic effect or not. We need to move away from DEXA to methods that are more suitable to what we expect from a mechanistic perspective. MRI is the first step in that direction. You see that now more and more utilized across clinical trials, but the compounds that are using them are not far enough so that regulatory alignment did happen. This is an open discussion. Beyond MRI, there are other biomarkers that are being in development that might be much easier to implement in later programs concurrently and correlate with MRI imaging to understand what is really the best biomarker then to carry forward in a development program. For now, we think MRI is really the tool of choice relative to the mechanism of action and what we would like to show. Good. The second question, just to reiterate, I think that was on AbbVie's communication around initiating phase II trial with the ABBV-295 and the lutikizumab for HS. Perhaps, I know it is limited what we can speculate, but perhaps we have some comments, Louise. Yeah. So definitely. You can say, again, it is up to AbbVie to comment on the specific rationale for entering this study. What we know is that a large patient population with HS also, to some extent, obese and overweight. From that perspective, there is a huge rationale in also reducing body weight in such a study. You can also say that it really shows that AbbVie believes in the potential of ABBV-295, not just within obesity, but also beyond obesity, and that is a strong signal for them to be sending. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Last one was again on UCN2 and kind of hear the comments that you will explore beyond obesity. I guess if you were to see a very, very strong signal on something, on muscle strength, for example, and there was potential in maybe kind of neuromuscular disorders, would you consider maybe pausing the development in obesity? Just because thinking from an economic perspective, it is probably a little bit more attractive to be in rare muscular disorders, whether that is an add-on therapy. I guess what would you need to see in the phase I to justify development outside of the obesity space? Thanks. Well, I guess that is highly speculative. That is highly speculative, right? I think we need to see what part of the biology is really translatable into the clinic, right? Really understand if we can have an impact on function. Function is driven by multiple aspects. It is not only the volume, it is the quality of the muscle, it is the capillarization, it is the neuromuscular coupling. There are multiple aspects that need to come together, right, in order to drive muscle function. This is what we need to further understand, right? If data are available, we can evaluate and then we can determine what is the right development, a pathway forward, right? For now, I think the focus is really on getting the data. Thanks a lot. Any additional questions before we do a break? No, it does not seem to be the case. All right. I think please ignore the 3:30 P.M. reconvene. I think we should reconvene here at 3:10 P.M. So 10 minutes past 3:00. Let us do a 30 minutes break. Thanks a lot. It is like my story. Adam, do not just always wait for the door to be. So good afternoon. Welcome back from the break to the audience online, but also here in front of me in London. My name is Zoë. I am Head of Gubra Ventures. This is our third and most recently launched business unit at Gubra. Before the break, you heard about the strength of our scientific platform, our R&D capabilities, and the progress we have made at advancing our internal pipeline. For the next 15 minutes or so, I am going to tell you what Gubra Ventures is, why we have launched it now, and how it fits into the broader Gubra organization. Before I do that, let me make it absolutely clear what Gubra Ventures is not, and Gubra Ventures is not a corporate venture fund. Instead, you can think of it as our external innovation arm of Gubra. Since we launched in March, we have reviewed over 150 opportunities. What that has taught us is the pool of external innovation is large, and there is a lot of opportunity for Gubra to apply what we have learnt and our expertise to those opportunities. However, to date, we have not yet launched a venture, and that is because we are applying the same high bar to Gubra Ventures that we apply to our internal pipeline progression decision-making. So what are we seeking? We are looking for credible science, de-risked path to development, and something where Gubra can really add an asymmetric upside to the opportunity. So how does Gubra Ventures sit within the broader Gubra model? Gubra CRO is our value enabler, and you are going to hear about that shortly from Trine. You have already heard that Gubra Biotech is our value driver. Gubra Ventures is our value accelerator. What do we mean by that? What we have built at Gubra over the last two decades is not just a peptide platform. We have built a proven R&D engine with all the capabilities spanning discovery, translational pharmacology, preclinical and clinical development, but also a proven partnering platform. Building new tech is a very high investment endeavor. At Gubra, we do not believe that we need or want to build everything internally. Instead, we will bridge external innovation to use what we already have internally to drive further pipeline value. So what you can see is what we are going to do is broaden the innovation footprint at Gubra with limited capital risk. Why do we believe now is the right time to launch Gubra Ventures? Successful venture creation requires much more than credible science. Many early biotech companies need to build from scratch all the capabilities that we already have at Gubra today to advance an interesting scientific idea into the clinic. We already have discovery. We already have deep expertise in core therapeutic areas. We understand how to turn a molecule into something that is clinically developable. Importantly, we also have a very strong operational infrastructure, and that means we can focus incremental capital on experiments, decisions, and the next milestones to create true value with what we already have today, and that is the core advantage of Gubra Ventures. The strategic rationale has four parts. We will strengthen our innovation pipeline through external assets and venture creation. We will be able to expand into new disease areas and also new technology areas or modalities beyond our current biotech and CRO focus. We will generate financial returns that can then be reinvested to support future growth at Gubra. We will build and advance assets using our existing innovation and development engine. Selectivity is really central to this model. I have mentioned we have looked at 150 plus assets to date in the last six months, and we have got a very deliberately high rejection rate. We must have a clear and active role in creating future value, and quality and strategic fit matter much more than transaction volume. How do we translate strategy into an operating model? We intend to create lean, asset-centric companies that leverage our integrated capabilities to really accelerate this value creation. We will start by bringing in assets and using Gubra functions early. We do not intend to build large structures around assets, but rather use what we already have today to develop those assets further. At the early stages, we expect this to be a low capital need and a rather straightforward governance with a Gubra majority. We will concentrate that early capital on the advancement of the asset to the next milestone. When we approach the clinic in IND-enabling, we will add a dedicated team as evidence and capital needs increase. That will really depend on the skills and capabilities that we need. We still intend at this stage to be a Gubra majority venture, but we will start the outreach to selected investor partners. Moving into the clinic, of course, the capital needs will step up, as will the needs within the venture. Here we expect to bring in more capabilities in the ventures, but also selected investor partners to share the capital and development risk as we progress those assets forward to the key clinical proof of concept. At that point, we then see several routes to value creation. We can take the route that Gubra has traditionally done to date, that is partnering. It also includes strategic transactions. Of course, there is a possibility that we will continue ownership of these assets and progress those further within Gubra itself. The principle is consistent. We will match capital, capabilities, and ownership of the asset to the needs of that asset. What is it that we are looking for at Gubra Ventures? We have three levers. There is the stage of development. We have the modalities that we can work with, and there is also the therapeutic areas that we want to focus on. The aim of Gubra Ventures is to maximize the value opportunity by creating synergies between our existing strengths and the external innovation landscape across all three levers. In simple terms, we see two real routes to create value. The first is discovery ventures. This is complementary external tech paired with Gubra's scientific peptide platform through partnerships to expand streaMLine beyond our core therapeutic areas. The second approach, and this is where we're focusing the majority of our efforts at the moment, is asset-centric. This is where we're looking for opportunities from development candidate stage through to phase I that already have some level of technical validation and are therefore, to some extent, de-risked, either through de-risking of the modality, de-risking of the target, or de-risking of what we know about that therapeutic area. The intention is that we will diversify but stay very close to our scientific and CRO advantages. In other words, we will diversify without losing focus. We will look in our core therapeutic areas of metabolic and cardiorenal, but we're also expanding into immunology and inflammation. How do we see this expansion into new therapeutic areas? You've already seen a version of this slide before, and this is how Ventures fits into that. Obesity, cardiovascular, and renal metabolic disease remain our therapeutic area core. We have deep expertise in this space. It's the foundation on which Gubra is built and that we are recognized for. We have strong leadership in this area, and we will continue to look for opportunities here, potentially expanding beyond peptides. Age-related functional decline is the logical expansion for new ventures as we leverage our increasing expertise and leadership in this area, and we're actively looking at opportunities in this space. I also want to talk a little bit about immunology and inflammation and why we see that as another frontier for us to expand into. Immunology and inflammation is a very large therapeutic area, and despite the advances that we've seen with biologics over the last couple of decades, there's still a huge unmet patient need. There are emerging opportunities in this space as we understand more and more about the biology and underlying pathophysiology, in part thanks to those biologics that have already led the way. We also see increasing interest in peptides in immunology and inflammation. For example, last week we saw an incredibly high-value deal where Gilead acquired a very early phase I asset from a stealth biotech called PepStar Therapeutics, targeting IL-23 receptor, a very well-validated target in I&I. This is a peptide asset acquired for over $1 billion. That tells us that there is an appetite for peptides in I&I, and we're only just starting. Therefore, we see an attractive venture profile for I&I. This is emerging biology, a high level of pharma interest, and subsequently investor interest, and multiple routes to eventual downstream value. I'd like to finish with three messages. We are going to use ventures to expand into new therapeutic areas and new modalities to create differentiated value for Gubra. We are going to accelerate the development of those assets through using our integrated capabilities that already exist today. We are going to repeat a scalable engine to create more shots on goal and multiple paths to long stream value. We've reviewed more than 150 opportunities. We're maintaining that same high bar for the selection of those opportunities, and we'll be working with selected investor partners as those assets mature and the clinical capital needs increase. Our ambition is to launch at least two ventures by 2030. This is why we call ventures Gubra's accelerator. In practical terms, it's a way for us to broaden our pipeline, diversify our potential future growth, and apply our scientific platform to more areas of high unmet need. Well, thank you for your time, and I'll now hand over to Trine. Thank you, Zoë. I'm very excited to be here today. My name is Trine. I'm Head of Gubra CRO. This is me. Yes. So we are leading in the metabolic and fibrotic preclinical CRO industry. We have a proven track record of delivering profitable growth above market average and substantial value to our customers. This is not by coincidence. This is by design. Today, our customers are facing substantial challenges. Speed and innovation in drug discovery is accelerating these years, and companies are competing to progress their drug discovery projects as fast as possible with as high quality data as possible. This is where the CRO adds value. We're Gubra's core value enabler. We provide deep scientific and translational expertise, reproducible disease models, and advanced technology platforms, and we combine it with reliable, high-quality data and execution. This is really our value proposition to our customers, both our internal customers, the biotech and ventures, and our external customers. Gubra was founded as CRO back in 2008. We started out in diabetes and obesity, and we built our strong scientific platform on this foundation, and this is the legacy that we're building our future on today. So we invested in obesity even before it was recognized as a disease. We're also part of the early efforts characterizing liraglutide, so we built a strong metabolic platform. In 2014, we spotted a trend in the market. In dialogues with our customers, our network, conversations with academia, at publications and conferences, we spotted a trend revolving around fibrosis in the liver. There was an unmet need in the market and no available treatment, so we decided to expand from our strongholds in the metabolic into fibrosis and MASH. In the beginning, I said our success is not built on coincidence, it's by design. Let me use MASH as an example of how we have built a successful playbook for creating differentiated high-quality services and created market leadership. As I said, in MASH, we spotted a trend early and we invested ahead of demand. We developed the clinically translatable GAN DIO-MASH model, and very importantly, we built it ready to scale from the offset. To enhance speed, precision, and data quality, we used machine learning to go from manual scoring of livered sections to AI-assisted histopathology. Also here, we were ahead of the curve, building AI and machine learning directly into our service delivery. We were first in the market with this translational disease model for MASH, and we built early commercial leadership and loyal customer trust. In 2024, the LITMUS Consortium also recognized the MASH model, top-ranked it for clinic translatability, and it is now considered a golden standard model in the market. This is the elements of the successful playbook that we have. We invest ahead of demand. We expand from our existing scientific platform, translational platform. We apply cutting-edge technologies, and we gain first-mover advantage in the market. It is with this playbook close to heart that we've also expanded into other disease areas, such as, for example, the kidney area, IPF, lung fibrosis, and most recently, sarcopenia and women's health. I think it will be hard to find a company in the industry working in obesity, in MASH, in kidney diseases, that have not worked with us over the years. Our ambition is to continuously innovate and expand from our strongholds to be ahead of the curve. This model is really amplified by us using cutting-edge technologies. As we venture into new disease areas, it's always accompanied by our strong technology platform in 2D and 3D imaging. This is an example of our 3D imaging platform. We invested early, also ahead of the curve, in 3D imaging in 2017. This technology is really part of revolutionizing the understanding of disease progression and drug distribution. We started in the brain, where we can visualize the entire brain at a cellular resolution to understand the treatment effects, and this is really important for our customers when making drug discovery decisions. We can map the drug distribution throughout the brain to really evaluate delivery technologies, such as the blood-brain barrier shuttles. Also we use whole-brain c-Fos mapping to show which brain regions respond to treatment, which is also especially helpful in obesity research. We transform complex 3D images into quantitative insight through automated analysis and this interactive visualization. As Thomas was talking about previously, we also have used the technology in other organs such as, for example, the sarcopenic models that you see here, where we can measure muscle volumes within an intact hind limb here, revealing which muscles respond to treatment. We can quantify vascularization, nerve density, and fibrosis to better understand changes in the muscle tissue, and we can enable direct measurement of skeleton muscle changes. This helps customers across therapies aimed at preserving muscle during weight loss or sarcopenia. Also here, I hope you can appreciate the beautiful 3D imaging of an entire ovary in 3D. We can count the oocytes and the follicles and to really assess treatment effects without sectioning bias. This technology is what differentiates us also in the market. It's our competitive edge. What technology is differentiating us at Gubra, automation, digitalization, and robotization is really what makes this differentiation scalable. Automation allows us to increase throughput and consistency without scaling cost and headcount proportionally. This is also an example from our 3D imaging lab, where we have high throughput light sheet microscopy. We can handle data from more than 800 brains per month, and fully automated staining and sampling handling. This robot that we've built that can also handle hundreds of samples at one time. In this way, we invest heavily in increasing throughput, quality, and consistency while reducing manual labor, and this is enhancing the value for our customers and also for profitability at Gubra. The commercial value of our entire capabilities combined is really demonstrated by customers choosing to work with us. We have worked with 17 up to top 20 pharmas, hundreds of biotechs globally. We have trusted long-term customer relationships, high net promoter score of close to 70, and we have demonstrated a historic growth above market average. Our ambition towards 2030 is to continue to grow from our strongholds at around 10% towards 2030. This position also, this strength also become increasingly important in volatile market conditions, as we have seen the past 12-18 months. The market is returning, and we see it evolving in our direction as well. The market for services in metabolic and fibrotic diseases is still growing. Biotech funding has rebounded. More preclinical R&D is being outsourced towards 2030 and beyond. The growing scientific complexity is also increasing the value of highly specialized services, and this is where our value proposition is extremely clear. We provide deep scientific translatable expertise, reproducible disease models, and highly advanced cutting-edge technologies and high-quality, consistent data and execution. We are well-positioned, we believe, to capture the growth that we foresee in obesity, in MASH, in kidney diseases. We also believe that these areas in sarcopenia and women's health represent attractive opportunities for us in the future. Both areas fit our playbook very well. There is an unmet need in the market, no or few available treatments. There is a growing focus in drug discovery on these diseases and in academia as well, and we have invested ahead of demand. There is a strong fit with our scientific and translational platform and scientific expertise, and we can combine it with our leading 2D and 3D imaging capabilities. This is why we expect to have an attractive first-mover advantage in these two disease areas. Our ambition towards 2030 is to remain a leader in this industry. We have shown that we can deliver profitable growth year-over-year above market average. We have shown that we have the guts and the brains to invest early ahead of the demand. We have the capabilities, we have the customer trust, and we have the strategy to scale this competitive advantage towards 2030. Thank you for your attention, and now I will hand it over to Kristian. Thank you, Trine, and it is a pleasure to talk about one of my favorite topics, capital allocation. My name is Kristian, I am CFO in Gubra. You heard my colleagues speaking about where we play and how do we win, and our strategy towards 2030. Capital allocation is really how to turn this strategy into action to create long-term shareholder value, what assets we prioritize, under what conditions, what activities we fund. It is a real pleasure to be here to talk about that across Gubra. If you look across Gubra and starting with the biotech discovery business here, I have graded the different business activities in terms of capital intensity. This is significantly less capital intensive compared to biotech development. Our discovery engine is where we develop novel differentiated peptides. We invest to master new type of peptide technologies like Louise talked about, macrocyclical peptides, oral delivery, long-acting peptides, to really stay at the top of the peptide field. When we have assets of interest, we progress them, and we make data-driven decisions. I will come back to that shortly. Because when Louise delivers something to Thomas' organization, the biotech development, all we know is that cost will rise. It is so important to only progress those assets which will have high potential and weighing risk and return. We rather, as Zoë also said, progress few assets rather than striving to build a large pipeline. So very selective in our choices and data-driven decisions. The ventures is essentially an extension of the biotech business. We want to have more shots on goal, more biotech assets in development. But importantly, the venture is a vehicle to progress assets, but with limited capital at risk. Essentially, we can put an asset in an asset company, get external funding at the project level, and have the ability to progress more assets without committing too much capital. The CRO business, that is a service business, so in terms of capital intensity, is fundamentally different. Here we invest to develop new service areas, new technology areas, as Trine talked about, the 3D imaging field, opening up new areas like sarcopenia, women's health, with Gubra invest ahead of everyone else. So we are willing, when we have a conviction, that we think an area where we can master and we think demand is there, we are willing to invest to broaden out our service catalog of offerings so we can remain the preclinical specialist and the go-to place for preclinical tests. The biotech business, everyone that has worked in the biotech business knows that the capital requirements increase alongside the development stages. So in order to drive the R&D efficiency, it is so important to make all development decisions based on rigorous data. So whenever we progress an asset, we also have a lot of assets that do not pass the bar. So we will have this failing fast concept. So whenever we are looking at the assets at certain development stages, pass some on, whereas others will not progress. Because again, the capital commitments, the capital requirements increase significantly, and especially as you approach and go into the clinic, it is so important to be selective. And as Markus talked about, we want to drive our assets to clinical proof of concept, and we want to make sure we have really strong assets that we enter, when we enter the clinic. So you can think of our asset portfolio manager, we look at the assets, and we choose the assets we want to fund and proceed. Of course, a really great example is the amylin asset. That project started in 2018 and started working with molecule and ensuring it had all the properties we would like from a peptide. In biotech, you need to have patience. So it takes years to progress the assets and the amylin, maybe through various development stages, whereas some other ideas did not. Because we have high bars and those assets we progress, they have the properties we would like to see from our peptides. We started the phase III back in 2023, and then a year later, we had the first clinical results, and just a few months after that, we made the landmark deal with AbbVie of $2.2 billion, including a very sizable upfront of $350 million. Here we turned an investment of around $25 million into $2.2 billion. Quite a high return on invested capital. We also returned funds to shareholders last year in terms of an extraordinary dividend. A very good blueprint case in how you should expect and how we want to develop our assets, and that we are very selective among those we progress. The ABBV-295 is not the only strong asset we have partnered out. We also have the triple agonist, as Louise and Thomas talked about, the Hemab collaboration, the amylin exploration, and the Camurus collaboration. A number of hopefully also in the future, recurring revenue streams that provide us with good funding to fund the investments in new R&D assets. Just repeating a little bit what Zoë said on Gubra Ventures. Here we have the ability to get really interesting science without taking too much risk. We can in-license an asset, put it in an asset company, get external funding at the company, asset level, product level, and then Gubra will contribute with capital, and we will also invite investors to that project. It is really a way to accelerate our biotech business without taking too much risk. It is a way to get more shots on goal because we are very mindful of having capital discipline. This is a vehicle that we can use to drive more assets in parallel without, again, taking too much risk and too much capital commitments. CRO business. As I said, in terms of capital requirements, it is fundamentally different compared to the other areas. This is a service business that ever since the start has been profitable and growing. A very asset-light business and very high return on invested capital. Over the last 10 years, it has generated around 14% revenue growth. That is double up compared to the overall industry and profitable, and that is part of having high customer trust. We service 17 out of the top 20 largest pharma companies, plus a vast number of biotech clients. They return to Gubra to get the preclinical results to make their next development decisions. We stand out with our quality and our speed. Trine talked about Gubra investing ahead of the curve. We go into areas which we think we can master, and we get the first-mover advantage. The fatty liver, the MASH field was one example, and we pioneered also in 3D imaging technologies. Now we are looking into women's health, sarcopenia, areas we think we can master and where we can build a strong position as a preclinical specialist provider, the provider to use for preclinical services. Just a few words on our solid financial foundation. We have a strong balance sheet. At June 30 this year, we had around $ 140 million in cash. That is before the milestones from AbbVie, the $50 million and the $ 10 million from Boehringer. A very strong financial foundation. The CRO business continues to generate recurring cash flow over the years, so that is another source of funding or cash flow. We have the partner programs, the existing partner programs, and we also have the potential, of course, to enter into new partnership providing recurring revenue. So multiple revenue streams across the company, that gives us financial flexibility to execute our strategy towards 2030. Summing up, it is really important that we invest where we have an edge, where we have a scientific competitive edge. That is where we prioritize our capital allocation, and we selectively choose assets to progress and fund them, and equally important, we deselect assets that do not live up to our bar. We fund it progressively. Each and every asset in the biotech business needs to live up to our rigorous requirements to what we want to see in a peptide. We also have the venture unit as a possible vehicle to accelerate our biotech business without taking too much capital at risk. With that, I leave the field open for questions here, Adam. Yes. Thanks a lot, Kristian. Yeah, we will be joined by Zoë, Trine, as well as Markus again. Yeah, same as before, very happy to address your questions. Please raise your hand if you would like to ask a question. We have a mic that we pass along here. I think perhaps we should start here with Theodora. Thank you again for the great presentation. I think my questions are going to be directed at Zoë. Still trying to wrap my head around the ventures business. I was just wondering, how do you think about allocating capital between internally developing assets, and financing the ventures? What will ultimately determine what asset stays in Gubra? Because you also mentioned that that is also an option of keeping it on, or is it developed through the venture model? Then, a second one, it was previously communicated that the first venture target was for the second half of this year. I was just wondering when we can expect anything on the first transaction. Thank you. Thanks for the questions. Starting with your first question, of course, what we've described today is that we have an internal pipeline, and we also have Gubra Ventures. Assets will either be brought in under a typical BD in-licensing into our pipeline, or when it makes sense, we will create ventures around it. I think as we progress ventures and we start announcing ventures, you'll understand maybe the model will make more sense, but it's really the asset will go where it has the best home. I'll leave Kristian to answer any capital allocation questions in a moment. I think your second question was, when will we launch the first venture? You've heard that we've looked at and reviewed a lot of opportunities to date. We're really excited about the advanced opportunities that we have in front of us, and we're as eager to tell you about our first venture as you probably are to hear about it, and that will come in due time. You want me to expand, Zoë? Yeah. Thank you. I think if you place it in a venture or at Gubra A/S level, I think it depends on both the strategic fit and the financial requirements. In case the financial requirements are significant, it is a developed asset, then it might be suited for a venture. If it fits extremely well into the current therapeutic areas, maybe that is more suitable for the Gubra A/S route than a venture. But then there are gray zones in between. I think we selectively will look at each asset by asset and how we should develop it, as best as possible. Yeah, go ahead, Thomas. Next set of questions. Yes. Thank you. Thomas from SEB. Maybe just on the CRO division of business. Assuming that you were to maybe even divest that part of the business, what would be the key risk of weakening, or is there any key risks here that we should assume in regards to weaken the biotech business? Then maybe also when looking at access to expertise, and also operational synergies. That is my first question, and then just a bit follow-up on venture. Can you maybe disclose how many opportunities are you actually actively looking at as of today? Then just for clarification, during the presentation, what kind of key milestones are you trying to establish once you decide to go with a venture? Thank you. Great. Okay. That was three questions. I think for the first question on the CRO and potential considerations around divestment, I guess that was essentially the question. I think we can start with Markus addressing that question. Yeah. And then we will move on to the next ones afterwards. Yeah, I think today we have no plans to separate the CRO. Keep in mind, the CRO, beyond providing non-dilutive cash flow to the company, has an inherent strategic part to the company. We have the scientific expertise in the CRO, all the preclinical models, and it is also a reason why our biotech unit can go from a drug development candidate towards a or from a peptide to a backbone to a drug development candidate in less than 18 months. So I think there is a substantial strategic value of the CRO to the company. And I think the three units today work very synergistic, and allow us to create value in different ways. So I think the strategic value of the CRO is very important to us at the moment. Great. And then on the ventures-related part. Yeah. I think Zoë, you can start, yeah. Yeah. With pleasure. I'd say we've got a healthy number of opportunities that we're currently looking at and certainly sufficient that we can be confident that at least one will turn into a concrete opportunity in the coming months. I think the answer to your other question, we're taking very much a portfolio risk approach. Of the opportunities in front of us today, some of those could actually be integrated into the pipeline. Others would make sense to become a venture, and they really span everything from Development candidate stage through to very close to phase I, and also cover some of our core flagship areas that we've talked about. We're really taking a very diversified approach to what we're looking at at the advanced stage to make sure that we are really maximizing the opportunities in front of us. Yeah. Perhaps, Morten, right next to Thomas. Thank you. Morten, from ABG Sundal Collier. Question on ventures and questions on CRO. On the venture part, just to help me understand, what would be a typical amount of cash you would allocate to one deal, and do you have some internal IRR requirements for such a deal? Do you want me to go, Zoë? If you like, you can take that one, Kristian. Well, the answer, Morten, is we don't have a specific number we want to allocate to a particular asset. It depends on the development stage of the asset, the size of the disease area and the risk and return. That's a very general answer, but it's a very honest general answer. It depends on the asset characteristics. I think we have to wait a little bit to see the first venture, and then we'll provide an indication of one venture. That also means you don't have an IRR requirement for the deals in the ventures? No. We're not operating like a corporate venture fund. This is really about maximizing our pipeline opportunities, as I said, using what we already have today to generate future value. Okay. Two, CRO business. Can you help us explain how you get to the +10% growth in that business? The market growth, you showed some slide actually showing that the market is going to grow faster than 10%, so how do you get to 10%? That is one. Two, there is a big rise in Chinese biotech right now, and you guys are not really playing into that. In fact, you guys are very European-centric, which is probably growing slower than the other markets. What is your strategic plans to diversify it outside of Europe? For the first question on the 10% growth, I think we have seen the last 12 to 18 months how quickly things can also change and how volatile this market is. So I think 10% is a realistic growth target for us with the portfolio and how we are growing the company in the disease areas that we are focusing on, new opportunities that we will leverage in the future. So, I think this is a solid target towards 2030. In regards to China, obviously it is a rapidly growing market and we do see competition from China, especially on price. However, as I was explaining in the presentation as well, scientific complexity is increasing, and the need for highly differentiated services, applying cutting-edge technologies and reliable high-quality data is also imminent. So this is where our value proposition is key. But you do not plan to open an office in Beijing, for example? That is not currently part of our plans. Okay. Final question, just on this, what has been the growth in the number of projects you have taken? We can see the revenue growth, but what have been the growth in the number of projects? Number of projects and new studies that we can Yeah take in Yeah in the CRO business? I think we make a solid business case on the different disease areas that we are venturing into and putting in probabilities and growth rates. It is highly in volatile market conditions, and we do see a growing market, but it is still uncertain how quickly growth will rebound. Biotech funding has rebounded in 2026, but how quickly will we get the benefits of this? There are still some uncertainties built into the models. I think 10% growth towards 2030 is solid. Very final, if I may, one more? Yeah, one of the- There was no mention of your margin target in the CRO business. You started out with, was it 35% EBIT margin? Now it is 25. Where are we going? We are guiding on 10%-15% EBIT margin this year, and we are continuously expanding our commercial activities, driving top-line growth, and really having a very disciplined cost structure. This is the balance that we are trying to strike while also growing, while also investing in the CRO. Finding that healthy balance is 10%-15% this year. Long term, I think the guidance target is- Well, we do not have an explicit guidance target. You have seen where we have been in the recent years, above 20%. It is clearly an aspiration to have a strong, profitable business without putting an explicit target on where we want to be, right? We have a good track record of generating profitable growth every year. In certain years, the smaller biotech clients, there is a little bit of volatility in those, but the big pharma companies, they provide a solid base for our revenue. Whenever you see Gubra CRO revenue fluctuating, it is primarily the smaller clients, just as we saw in 2023 and 2024. We were growing by 30% each year. In 2025, the biotech climate was a little less supportive. It did not affect our larger clients, but it affects the delta of the smaller clients. The volatility comes from the biotech clients, not from the big pharma. They continue to place studies at Gubra. I think we expanded. I think we had 14 or 15 of the top 20 big pharma companies some three, four years back. Now we have 17. We see these big pharma companies as a strong foundation and a validation of our preclinical services. We have been profitable each and every year since 2008, and we will remain to generate return on investment. Great. Thanks a lot for those questions, Morten. Rune, go ahead. Rune from DNB Carnegie. Two questions on Venture. First of all, you talk about the portfolio approach, but you are targeting two to three deals until 2030. That does not really compile a portfolio. The second, you talk about 150 plus assets being evaluated. What part of that amount has been Gubra saying no and the other part, the partner saying, "We don't want to do this with Gubra," or the deal terms that Gubra is offering is not good enough? I am trying to understand the value proposition that you are offering and how that is perceived. Yeah. Two great questions. Let me start with the second one first. Almost all of those 150 that we have not progressed have been Gubra saying no. In fact, I would say all of them so far. Actually, what we are offering is a really attractive proposition to asset holders, and these could be either distressed assets coming from venture-backed biotech. In the area that we are working on at the moment, and as I am sure you know better than me, there is not a lot of venture capital for this early stage asset. There is actually a large number of opportunities sitting in Gubra's sweet spot. We actually offer a really attractive path to value creation outside of having to raise venture capital. We are actually seeing a lot of interest in this model. I am not worried about that. Regarding your second point, I would say not every opportunity in our advanced assessment will make it to a venture for both reasons. It could be us or it could be the partner. We are taking a portfolio approach when we have the time and energy spent on moving those towards a final deal. Of course, we do not intend, and you have heard me say that, and Kristian as well, to have more than two to three ventures by 2030. Really, we are going to be very confident that when we do a deal, it is the right deal, and it will somewhere land in our portfolio de-risked approach. Maybe I can add, out of eight to 10 assets in the clinic, if two or three come from ventures, I think I would consider that a reasonable contribution. Great. Thanks a lot, Rune. Any additional questions from the audience? Theodora, over here. Thank you. I have two questions, if that's okay. The first one's on the CRO business. You spoke during the presentation and also before that you see women's health as being a key driver of growth there. I was just wondering how that's been tracking so far versus your expectations. Secondly, just on capital allocation. You've spoken, I guess, in detail about how you intend to invest within each of the segments, but I was just wondering how you think about how you split your investment across the segments, because I guess by the nature of it, by choosing to invest in CRO versus biotech, for example, you're limiting the growth in the other segments. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Let's start with the CRO-related question. Yes, and thank you for that question. As I said in the presentation, we are investing ahead of the curve, and this is definitely also the case in women's health. However, we are seeing an increase in incoming requests for our services. There's a focus in drug discovery, both in big pharma companies and in biotech. From the time that this interest is arising until it materializes into revenue, it takes some time. But we do see traction in this area, both from pharma companies and from biotech companies. In terms of capital allocation, if I should take that, Trine. Fortunately, Trine runs a profitable business, so she can choose with her own funds activities to develop. This is not an asset-heavy industry. It's adding essentially FTEs to develop areas where we have a conviction that we can master those areas. It is a relatively limited capital requirements to develop new areas, but it takes time. You cannot really purchase an asset to master women's health or sarcopenia. We need to develop that area over years, and we started in 2024, and now we are starting to see traction. We need to have patience, but in terms of capital allocation, it is limited. Great. Thank you, Kristian, and thanks for the questions. Any additional questions? Nope. It does not seem to be the case. All right. That concludes the presentations and the Q&A. I will now hand it over to Markus for a few closing remarks as we conclude. Well, first of all, I would like to thank everybody here in London for participation, also for the people on the webcast. This first R&D day for Gubra was really an exciting event for us, and it was the first time that we could talk about our new ambition and how we want to address our ambition. I would like to leave you with three sorts of key messages. Remember, Gubra has great differentiated science in the platform, which is disease-agnostic. We can create innovation beyond metabolic diseases. Also remember, we have a very valuable pipeline already. The value creation which will come from adding multiple high-value asset to that already existing pipeline, like GUB-UCN2, will be substantial if we reach our aspiration of having 8 - 10 assets in the clinic. The aspect that our strategic optionality has substantially improved with our business unit model gives us now more flexibility to allocate our capital and focus on programs and projects which provide the highest value to Gubra and to shareholders. The ambition we have put forward today, 8 - 10 clinical assets, one to two new drug development candidates every year working in three therapeutic areas, creating value with two to three operating ventures plus our very successful CRO, I think should resonate. I think we are capable of getting there, and we have the right team in place and the right capital to deliver on that aspiration. It is all about scaling the successful model we have already. We have a great foundation. With this, I thank you very much and, see you soon, hopefully.