Greetings, and welcome to the Nykode Therapeutics Q2 2026 financial results presentation. At this time, all participants are in listen only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. You may ask a question any time by typing it into the ask a question feature on your screen. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to Chief Executive Officer Michael Engsig. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you very much, Kevin, and also from our side, a very warm welcome and good morning to all participants on this quarterly results presentation. We assume you are familiar with our forward-looking statements, and on that note, we'll move forward. As usual, I am very pleased to have with me here today Agnete Fredriksen, our co-founder, Chief Scientific Officer, and head of business development, as well as Harald Gurvin, our Chief Financial Officer. For those not familiar with Nykode, just a few words on the company. Nykode is a clinical stage immunotherapy company with a focus on oncology and autoimmune diseases. Our lead asset is Abi-suva, a therapeutic cancer vaccine targeted against HPV 16-driven cancer types. We have encouraging results across three different indication three trials with close to 100 patients in total, which gave us the confidence to move into the first randomized phase II trial, in first line head and neck, which is ongoing and called Abili-T. On track to deliver the first interim results in 2027. Our second clinical asset is VB10.NEO, which is an individualized neoantigen therapy. We saw some very important validating results from the field last week, and we'll of course, be discussing that more in depth at this call here. We have clinical data from VB10.NEO from more than 10 tumor types. Based on the manufacturing process, which of course, center around pDNA as the rest of our technology, we do feel that we have a much simpler manufacturing process, which, compared to the mRNA, will support a competitive COGS and turnaround time at commercial stage. Furthermore, we have over the years developed an AI-driven target selection, which we also believe strongly will add to the competitive edge of VB10.NEO. The strategy for VB10.NEO has been to position ourselves as the most attractive unencumbered asset or INT asset in the area to leverage the type of validating data that we saw last week. Third asset is our tolerance platform, which is right now focused on autoimmune diseases, utilizing the same technology as we use in the cancer vaccines. Currently in pre-clinical stage. We're strongly capitalized, with a runway into 2028, which can be extended to 2029, pending the outcome of the tax case. Very briefly on the highlights before I hand over the work to Agnete. It's been another interesting period. Starting from the back, last week, we saw what we consider probably the most important cancer vaccine data ever, when Moderna came out with positive phase III data for their individualized neoantigen cancer vaccine, which clinically validated not only individualized cancer vaccines, but we feel in general, all cancer vaccines. That means also the off-the-shelf. We will have Agnete discuss that in more details in a few seconds. We also showcased our data at the International Neoantigen Summit in July from the NeoSELECT asset. We will also have Agnete say a little bit more about that, once you go through it. Finally, we also disclose we have a new patent granted for VB10.NEO, which further solidifies the IP protection around our asset. Finally, just want to highlight that our Abili-T trial, the randomized phase II trial with Abi-suva in first line head and neck is progressing as planned, which brings us online for an interim result in 2027. I will just say a few words on that a little bit later in this call here. With those words, I am going to hand over to Agnete to take us through an update on VB10.NEO. Thank you, Michael. You may notice that we start off with NeoSELECT today on the back of the very exciting news from Moderna and MSD last year. For those of us that worked in cancer vaccines for decades, we have been waiting for this moment, to see what we expect will be the first approval of a cancer vaccine ever. First, I am going to just remind you a little bit of individualized neoantigen therapy as a class. It is a personalized cancer vaccine targeting specific mutations found in the tumor of the patient. So we identify these by sequencing the tumor and compare to healthy tissue from the same patient and identify these neoantigens, which are tumor-specific mutations, can also be fully patient specific. The INT platform means it is fully personalized per patient. That also means you need to manufacture one vaccine per patient, which makes the algorithm-driven neoantigen selection part very important, and that you have a validated method in order to find the relevant neoantigen. It is also important that the manufacturing process is as less complex as possible so we can be scaled to expand into multiple tumor indications at a stage that can be competitive commercially, both on turnaround time and also COGS. As individualized neoantigen therapy basically takes a tumor sample from the patient. You can do that no matter which tumor type, and that means this therapy can be applicable across solid tumors wherever you can find mutations. Importantly, the first trial that we have seen being successful now with MSD and Moderna, INTerpath trial, is in melanoma adjuvant setting, early stage, where you have surgically removed the tumor and then vaccinated to delay or prevent recurrence. When you treat patients at this early stage, there is obviously a high patient number, but it is also important that the treatment can have a nice safety profile and combine effectively with whatever other immunotherapies that will be given in that time period for each indication. First, a little reminder on what we saw last week. The readout of the phase III INTerpath-001 trial, which is the first phase III trial of any cancer vaccine, and in principle, individualized cancer vaccine in patients, as I mentioned, that is in the locally advanced or adjuvant setting. This first one is in melanoma patients in adjuvant setting Stage 2B to 4. It is more than 1,000 patients enrolled in the trial. We saw with the very first readout that they already met the primary endpoint, which is the recurrence-free survival. They also already announced that they met one of the key secondary endpoints, which are distant metastasis-free survival. These data seem very impactful. We expect to see all the data in detail at the conference later, most likely at ESMO. Importantly, without seeing the data, they announced that both MSD and Moderna will jointly pursue regulatory approval on the back of these results, which means we are most likely looking at the first cancer vaccine being approved for commercial use. This is a big change for the cancer vaccine field. Cancer vaccines are now suddenly de-risked as a modality. Now it is about finding the right setting and the right technology that can support competitive commercial case across lots of different indications. We will see more data coming out now in the future, both in early stage, locally advanced adjuvant setting. Also, some data will read out in the future in the first line setting. We will see the breadth of the potential for cancer vaccines. Then again, it is for us also important that this not only validates individualized neoantigen therapies but also off-the-shelf cancer vaccines. For individualized, there are two important points in order to be competitive and build the best commercial attractive case is in as many indications as possible. One of them comes from the technology. It is really important that you have this target selection that can work across indications. Also, those indications where there are few tumor mutations, and technologies that can elicit immune responses against the sufficient breadth and quality that can correlate with clinical outcome. Obviously also, as I said, safety reactogenicity that permits the combinations with a range of standard of care. Another very important part here is economics per patient manufacturing turnaround time, and COGS will have a much bigger role of the attractive case when it comes to an individualized therapy than an off-the-shelf. This is going to be super important here. VB10.NEO is unencumbered. It is clinically validated, individualized neoantigen therapy. Nykode Therapeutics was one of the first biotech companies that went into the clinic with individualized neoantigen therapy already in 2018. NeoSELECT selection platform is something we have used from the beginning as a proprietary, wholly-owned, wholly-developed neoantigen selection platform. We also proven that that works. We can use that to identify neoantigens in more than 10 different tumor types. That includes indications with low tumor mutational burden. We do manufacture and provide this as a pDNA vaccine, which is, per definition, a manufacturing process with fewer steps, which should give faster turnaround time and lower COGS. We believe that VB10.NEO then will be very attractive for this kind of therapy and capture the broad potential of the market. Going a little bit back to the data we have with VB10.NEO. Our technology, we incorporate the neoantigens in the antigenic units per patient, and it is linked to our dimerization targeting unit. Compare this, which is here to the right, we can identify a stronger immune response against the set of neoepitopes, here shown for the MC38 model. As we have clinical experience with VB10.NEO across two trials, both basket trials, both in late-stage cancer patients. We have been able to show that our neoepitope selection algorithm that we call NeoSELECT, systematically prioritizes the most immunogenic neoantigens, or even within the up to 20 neoepitopes that we include in the vaccine. It is in principle the number one that is the strongest immune response, eliciting a strongest immune response in the clinic compared to number 20. We have not seen that with other trials. To our knowledge, we also reported a correlation between immune responses against the neoantigens in the vaccine and overall survival. To our knowledge, we are the only one that has shown this. What is shown here is even in those patients with the low baseline immune response, and those then in this group that elicits strong immune responses against the neoantigens in the vaccine also do survive longer. When it comes to the manufacturing process, we have worked for multiple years on the manufacturing process with a set of selected providers that are distributed around the world. Even with this setup and all the experience we gained, we have reduced the manufacturing turnaround time from 18 weeks in the beginning to lower and lower across the clinical experience. Since we got the product batch, we have some key improvements that now gives us a current optimized manufacturing process with the setup that we have with less than 6 weeks. That includes drug substance and drug product manufacturing processes, has now been consolidated under one roof, which is important for optimized slot utilization and shipment timeline. We have improved DNA isolation methods and optimized DNA plasmid synthesis process. This has led us now to a less than 6-week manufacturing process time. Then we know we are still working with multiple providers, and that includes shipments and it includes weekends, et cetera. Further development of a simple, more consolidated in-house process with removal of all these holding steps can give us a clear path to four-week manufacturing time. We are already competitive at this stage and should be competitive with the further optimization that will be very logical to implement before commercial use. To support the cost of goods statements, when you look at the number of steps in manufacturing plasmid DNA compared to mRNA, there are simply fewer steps in the manufacturing process, which supports why we strongly believe this would lead to a shorter turnaround time and cost of goods just by the fact that we do plasmid DNA. We are very happy with where we are and with the clinical data and the stage of the program. We are still an innovative company. We have worked over the last period with further improvements of our APC-targeted technology platform. You can see here some of the data generated over the last year where we are able to find improvements that can even further enhance the immune responses against also here in the neoantigen context. These can be important for even a further competitive edges in the future across different indications. To sum up, it has been an emotional week for Nykode Therapeutics when it comes to the strong now validation of cancer vaccines in general, but also giving us all this confidence back on the individualized neoantigen therapy and VB10.NEO in particular. We have two completed trials actually across certain different tumor types, including tumor types with long tumor mutational burden. We have seen to date and also in the latest trial, 100% of the patients are responding with immune responses to our vaccine, even in late-stage cancer. It does have a very clean safety profile, not only safety, but also very low reactogenicity. Interestingly enough, the immune responses that we see also correlate with overall survival from what we can see with these basket trials. To our knowledge, that is unique to this class. Not to forget competitive manufacturing turnaround. Competitive manufacturing turnaround already less than 6 weeks, 100% batch success, simpler manufacturing process compared to mRNA, and good timing with the U.S. patent now also extending into a broader protection potential against our construct. Then I hand back to you, Michael. Abi-suva is still super important, although we are enthusiastic about VB10.NEO as well. Certainly, Agnete. Thank you very much for that review. We will keep it short on Abi-suva this time here. As you all know, our current focus for Abi-suva is on first-line head and neck. Head and neck cancer does represent a very sizable patient population with more than 60,000 new cases of HPV 16 driven head and neck cancers across the EU and U.S. every year. The unmet medical need is still significant for this patient population, with only one in five patients actually responding to the standard of care, and the median overall survival no longer than 12 months for the standard of care. Furthermore, although head and neck does receive a lot of attention right now across the field of drug developers, the main bulk of drug candidates in development for head and neck are actually focused on the HPV negative population. Here we are targeting a population that is not well served or addressed by current drugs in development. Finally, we are looking forward at an expected future significant growth in the HPV 16 head and neck cancer cases, and a very attractive projected market increase for the next decades. Worthwhile noting is this is not the only potential area for Abi-suva. There is also very sizable patient populations, particularly in the cervical cancer that can be addressed. Right now our focus is on first line, but if we also start looking towards the early stage settings, the locally advanced, the adjuvant, then the potential increases even more. This, of course, is something we will have in mind as we plot the future for Abi-suva going forward. Most important activity in Abi-suva right now is, of course, our randomized Abili-T trial, phase II trial, enrolling up to 100 patients and randomizing into two arms. The experimental arm is Abi-suva in combination with pembrolizumab, which is the standard of care in this patient population. The other arm, the control arm, is pembrolizumab alone. We will be assessing objective response rate and progression-free survival as the co-primary endpoints in this trial. The protocol is now approved in eight European countries. So seven EU and on top of that, U.K. The first patient was enrolled in Poland in May 2026, and since then, the patient enrollment have further expanded across additional sites in the U.K., Spain, and France. We do see progress as planned in this trial. Focus going forward is, of course, to further expand the number of sites and countries. We do expect to add two to three additional countries to the list, and ensure that we have full engagement and motivation from our investigators across these countries. All in all, we are still on line our target for an interim readout in 2027, and will, of course, keep you updated further as we get a better view on when in 2027 we can expect to see these data. We have also started looking in particular on the back of the Moderna data last week. We feel further encouraged to that. We have started to look into exploring Abi-suva in a locally advanced setting. We believe there is a huge potential for Abi-suva in that setting also. More on that later. Just a very few words on tolerance, our third asset, and the ASIT platform that represents an entirely new approach to treating autoimmune diseases. It relies on the same core technology, so targeting to the antigen-presenting cells, which is also in autoimmune diseases, a key regulator of the immune response. For our ASIT platform, we have adapted our technology to restore the immune tolerance in the autoimmune diseases, which really is the key to addressing autoimmune diseases going forward. We are progressing the ASIT platform forwards towards the first clinical development program, and we will be guiding you more on that path in the coming period. With those words, I will hand over to Harald to take us through the financial results. Thank you, Michael. Looking at the income statement, other income of NOK 106,000 for the second quarter relates to government grants. Employee benefit expenses for the quarter were NOK 2.3 million, compared to NOK 2.9 million for the same period in 2025, reflecting a reduction in organizations. Other operating expenses were NOK 4.1 million in the second quarter, up from NOK 3.4 million in the same period in 2025, reflecting increased clinical activities following initiation of the Abili-T trial. Finance income and costs were net NOK 400,000 negative in the quarter, which mainly relates to interest income and unrealized currency movements on Norwegian krone exposure. Overall, we recorded a net loss of $ 7.2 million for the second quarter, compared to a net profit of NOK 800,000 for the same period in 2025. Moving on to the balance sheet. We are still well capitalized, with a cash position of NOK 44.8 million at the end of the second quarter. With discipline execution and strong financial focus, we will reach key inflection points within the estimated cash runway into 2028. This does not include the pending tax case, where we have booked a non-current receivable amounting to NOK 33.4 million at the end of the second quarter, as further described in the quarterly report. Nykode Therapeutics is confident that we will receive a positive ruling in the tax case, also based on advice from third-party tax experts. The latest we have from the Secretariat in the Tax Appeal Board is that we can still expect to receive a draft recommendation from the Secretariat in August. We expect to communicate to the market immediately once the draft recommendation is received, and we have had time to process the information. A positive outcome will push the cash runway into 2029. Moving on to equity liabilities. We have total equity of NOK 80 million, which represents a strong equity ratio of 93%. With that, I will give the word back to Michael. Thank you very much. I will just conclude with the outlook before we open up for questions. As stated earlier, well capitalized, with a runway into 2028. As we said, this will further extend with a positive outcome on the pending tax case. That brings us well past a number of significant inflection points for our assets. Focus for the coming period will, as said before, obviously be on the execution of the Abili-T trial, where the priority right now is to expand the number of countries and sites, get the sites engaged, motivate the investigators to identify the patients currently on plan for an interim readout in 2027. In addition to that, we see a number of potentially very exciting data reading out from peers across the cancer field, similar to what we saw last week. We will, of course, be keeping a keen eye on our most important peers in the field for the coming period. As Agnete said, the period has never been more exciting than what we are seeing right now for cancer vaccines. We are expecting, based on guidance from the authorities, first a draft recommendation on the tax case in August. We will continue to progress and mature the asset platform, bringing us forward towards the first clinical development program. That continues into 2027, where we do expect to see further peer data from our peers reading out, as well as, of course, being able to report the Abili-T interim results during 2027. So exciting periods ahead of us. With those words, I think we are ready to conclude the phone part of this call and move to the questions. Kevin? Thank you. We will now be conducting a question- and- answer session. If you would like to ask a question today, please type question into the Ask a Question feature on your screen. Our first question today is coming from Geir Hiller Holom from DNB Carnegie. You state that the Abili-T phase II trial is progressing according to plan and reiterate that the first interim efficacy readout is expected in 2027. Could you elaborate on the key parameters and milestones you are monitoring to assess the likelihood of being able to present interim data by year-end 2027? Yes, sure. Thanks for the question, Geir, and it is getting a little bit technical here, but just to give you a feeling for the kind of KPIs that we are measuring here, and reviewing against a plan is obviously getting the protocol approved in countries, and getting the sites up and running. Once we have approval in country, the next task for a site is to get the site contract, clinical trial agreements signed and get the site staff trained on all the parameters that needs to be trained, before we can give every site a so-called green light. At that time point, they can start enrolling patients. We have projections both for countries getting approved and sites getting approved. That is the most important parameter in the beginning of the trial. From there, of course, we begin to monitor the number of patients entering screening before they, subsequently and subject to a successful screening, enter the enrolled stage. That is where they get the first dose. It is a multitude of different KPIs that we are monitoring and revving up against a predefined Plan together with the board to be able to gain confidence that we are on track toward 2027. I think that is enough said on that question, Kevin. Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up from Geir Hiller Holom from DNB Carnegie. Could you elaborate on the potential paths you are considering to bring your first tolerance asset into clinical development, including the key steps and milestones required to reach the clinic? Yeah, sure. It is a pretty standard path to the clinic from where we are today. We have worked on the platform and made sure we can be confident on the modality and the targeting units, et cetera. From there on, when we are selecting the indication that dictates the antigenic part of our molecule. Then we move on to what we call lead selection, which is when we nail down the exact construct and the product that we want to pursue into the clinic. From there on, we both need to do what is called non-clinical tox. There is a tox program. You need to make sure that the exact product manufactured under a similar manufacturing process as you will do for the clinical trial is safe and considered to be safe to be given to patients. As part of that, you need to move that manufacturing process onto also a GMP manufactured product. All the documentation of this goes into a regulatory filing to the authorities, together with the then defined clinical development plan for the first trial. When we get that approval, we are basically back to what Michael just explained from getting the approval and in each country and setting up the sites, et cetera. Part of this, depending on which indication, will decide whether we do these studies for the first part in-house or with a commercial partner or an academic partner or any partner. Next question. Our next question is coming from Gaspar Veeren from Arctic. mRNA vaccines are believed to have more efficient delivery as the mRNA only needs to reach the cytoplasm, whereas plasmid DNA has to cross both the cell membrane and the nuclear membrane before expression can occur. However, your vaccines encode protein that targets antigen-presenting cells, APCs. Would you say you can compensate for less efficient DNA delivery through biological targeting after expression? This is a long I can talk about for a long time. mRNA and DNA are both genetically based, but they do have very different mechanisms of action in principle. DNA is basically the template for making the mRNA. If you inject the DNA, the DNA will make mRNA. There is a huge difference. You can either give the mRNA directly. It's a product that only needs to reach the cytoplasm, that's true. But if you don't have the DNA, the mRNA you inject will be the mRNA that you can rely on. There will not be a new DNA that can encode multiple new mRNAs. Meaning when you give the mRNA, you give it reaches cytoplasm, and when that is degraded, there is no new genetically encoding new vaccine protein, which means there is a very different kinetic. DNA needs to go into the nucleus, but they will then start to make mRNA and can do that over a longer period of time than giving the mRNA as the only product. Then obviously the protein that we're encoding. Maybe one point first, the dose that we give of DNA is higher than what you give of RNA. That also fills you something. That is also based on the safety process because both RNA and LNPs, as they formulate, is more reactogenic than DNA. We can give a higher dose of the DNA than you can of RNA. Then the protein that is being encoded, whether it first starts with the DNA, goes through the mRNA, and then code the protein, or you give it as mRNA yourself, needs to be taken up, processed by APCs, processed and presented on the surface of these APCs to T cells. And that's where our technology with the three components we have in our protein makes that part more efficacious as to how we elicit the immune response. They all have different methods in order to achieve the end goal, and the end goal is to elicit the optimal T cell response. So there are lots of things coming into consideration here. I think importantly for us, DNA manufacturing costs, durability of expressing new proteins, and also our technology and the way we elicit the T cell responses is of importance. Thank you. We can go to the next. Yep. Our next question is a follow-up from Gaspar Veeren from Arctic Securities. Your current time for VB10.NEO from biopsy to injecting the vaccine in a patient is approximately six weeks. How fast can you compress it to four weeks, and what needs to happen to achieve this? Thank you very much, Gaspar. Although a good question. Importantly, the optimizations we have seen so far and the optimizations we are looking forward at is basically optimizing the current process that we have. We are looking at refinement and adjustments of our supply setup by combining things under one roof and further optimizing the logistics. The improvements from our current level at around six weeks, or just below six weeks towards four weeks is more of the same. That would mainly see further investment. It would see more intensive shifts, things like weekend work to basically avoid the hold times that occurs when you shift between the different stages of the production. So it's more a matter of actually investing into the process and see more intensive labor processes than inventing new steps. This can be done in a pretty effective way should the investments be warranted. We're quite confident that would be quite easy fix. Next question. Thank you. Our next question today is coming from Georg Tigalonov-Bjerke from ABG Sundal Collier. George says, "Good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. I have two. In the report, you state that Abili-T continues to progress according to plan, with enrollment having expanded across additional sites in the U.K., Spain, and France. Can you provide some detail on the ratio between screening and full enrollment that you have seen so far? And secondly, can you provide any color on the extent to which you have already seen a meaningful increase in partner interest or discussions following last week's news on intismeran autogene from Moderna and MSD? Thank you. Yes. Thanks, George, for these questions. I'll take the first question and then hand over to Agnete for the second question. On the first question, it is too early to conclude on any meaningful trends these countries do have. Some of the processes that are necessary for setting up the sites are a little bit unique to the country. We do see the countries coming online, if you could call so, with activation of the sites a little bit in waves. Therefore, any trends that you see right now would not be meaningful to conclude anything on. So, it's too early to say anything. So far, we're happy with both the activation of sites across the countries and the engagement we see from investigators. Also, we've not seen anything concerning in terms of screening failures. So, as I said, I am repeating myself here, to date, we are quite happy with the startup progress of the Abili-T trial, and it has also been the full focus of the organization. So as I said before, this is priority number one, two, and three, and it is all hands on deck for this trial here in the team. So I am very happy with what we are seeing so far. I will hand over to Agnete for the second part of this question here. Yeah. Thank you, George. We cannot comment on details on what is happening directly with the dialogue with potential partners, of course. What I can say is that I would be surprised if the partner interest in cancer vaccines, including individualized cancer vaccines, would not increase on the back of this news. Importantly, I think you should know that this comes on the back of the first-ever trial of any cancer vaccine tested in a phase III setting in the adjuvant setting where you have removed the bulk of the tumor, and then you vaccinate, and you prevent recurrence. So it does not come on the back of other technologies failing, and it does not come on the back of other cancer vaccines failing in other cancer indications in the adjuvant setting. So that should, in my mind, lead to a lot of curiosity for pharma partners as to explore the potential of additional cancer vaccines, both off-the-shelf and individualized, in a range of other indications and seek which one fits the best. I think others have just simply not been tested yet in that setting. Then, we have seen this happen before with GLP-1, with antibodies, with checkpoint inhibitors, et cetera. So on the back of the first success, usually, there is an increased change in the strategy of multiple pharma companies wanting to be part of the new wave of a new modality. Thank you. Our next questions today are coming from Eric Hoffman from Eric Investments AS. You have previously shown that NeoSELECT making correlates with actual immunogenicity in patients. How do you feed clinical data back into NeoSELECT to improve future vaccine designs? Does this mean that NeoSELECT could potentially become better as you accumulate clinical data from more patients and vaccine designs? Yeah. This is both a technical question and a regulatory question, or an answer at least to your question. Yes, everything we learn currently, we assess whether that can be used in order to further improve NeoSELECT. We take that very seriously, and where the amount of clinical data and the established high-quality competence that we have in this company is something that I feel is a competitive edge. Then, as we know, part of a clinical development program within certain indications, et cetera, at a certain time point, you need to lock down the neoantigen selection method. That we will also obviously keep in mind and do that at the right time. Next question. Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up from Eric Hoffman from Eric Investments AS. Following the positive phase II results from MSD and Moderna, what do you now see as the key characteristics that differentiate VB10.NEO from other individualized neoantigen vaccines? Yeah. That's a long list that I went through in the webcast. We do think there are multiple features that are key differentiators. If I were to select one from now on, I do think the less complex manufacturing is going to be extremely important. We don't see so far that the immunogenicity data generated by the quite limited clinical reports from Moderna is not scary for us. But we also don't know at this stage what the immune responses are needed and across different indications. The manufacturing process is the key, and then it's all the technology's abilities to be applied in additional indications and provide efficacy in those as well, in addition to what we've now seen in melanoma adjuvant setting, will be interesting. Thank you. Certainly. Our next question is coming from Eric Hoffman from Eric Investments AS. Through Genentech agreement already demonstrated in 2021, the value of combining large amounts of patient data and antigen selection with Nykode's platform, how important do you believe data and machine learning will be as a competitive advantage for Nykode over the next five years? I think we have just seen an increase in applicability of AI and ML in the last few years. The longer we've been around as a company, and the more data we generate, both pre-clinically and clinically, and obviously the entire field of AI and ML from also the outside of the world. When you combine all of those, there is quite impactful improvements that we can take advantage of on the drug design. Importantly, I think since we started with individualized neoantigen therapies very early, we have built that experience earlier than most other companies. We have also now generated clinical data, but also importantly pre-clinical data with our constructs, with a very high number, I won't say the number, of constructs, and can use all these data in order to learn what would be the optimal cancer vaccine design, and also obviously in tolerance. For future potential of additional cancer vaccines, and obviously for the individualized, and the tolerance program, we will make sure to take advantage of what we've built. Thank you. We have reached the end of our question and answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over for any further closing comments. Thank you very much, Kevin, and thank you very much to everyone dialing in to this results presentation and for your engaged questions. We feel you are as enthusiastic as we are for the coming period for cancer vaccines. I look forward to keep you updated on our future efforts and achievements. With those words, I wish you all a good day, and talk to you soon. Thank you. That does conclude today's webcast. You may disconnect the line at this time, and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.