Okay, I think we can go ahead and get started. My name's Ally Bratzel, one of the biotech analysts here at Piper Sandler. And it is my pleasure to introduce our next company, AbCellera. So joining us today, we have Martin Hogan, Senior Director of Strategic Finance there. So just on format, we'll have a couple minutes of introduction, and then you know, kinda go into Q&A. So if anyone has any questions, go ahead, raise your hand. We'll get to you. But yeah, first off, Martin, why don't you give us a couple-minute overview on AbCellera, you know, what you've done, where you're going? Absolutely. First of all, thanks for having us, Ally. Always a pleasure to be here. You know, really, really enjoy your coverage, and so it's great to, great to be in person. Maybe before I start, I will be making some forward-looking statements. Please take a look at our risk factors and our SEC filings, and you know, with that, I think in terms of background of the company, it's, it's maybe useful just to, you know, just to sort of reflect back that the company was founded in 2012, and we then spent, you know, a decade and over $500 million building out the capability to go from the concept for an antibody-based drug, now all the way, through manufacturing into the clinic. And we built that capability with a view from the beginning to solve technical problems that stood in the way of achieving some really remarkable new therapies with antibody-based drugs. And to do that you know in a way that was scalable. And so we had the opportunity to you know both develop and then practice that skill on over 100 drug development programs for partners over that period. And what we're looking at now is we have the solution, we know it works, we know we're capable of finding antibodies against the you know least tractable targets in the industry, have done so successfully repeatedly, and are now increasingly turning that capability towards opportunities with the greatest opportunity for value creation. And we're finding those really accessible through internal programs. So we're increasingly looking at concepts, ideas for new antibody-based drugs that we can identify and validate ourselves and pursue ourselves up to into the clinic, before we need to think about, you know, whether it might be appropriate to find a partner, and on that journey, you know, we're approaching a really exciting point in the company's life where we're planning to file our first two IND equivalents in Canada in the second quarter of next year. Excellent. Well, that's a great place to start and maybe kinda keeping it, you know, high level. You know, now that the AbCellera enGene is largely in place, and you're kinda executing on a strategy to, you know, advance programs on your own or at least to a greater value inflection point. You know, it seems like you're in a unique position now to decide, you know, how to use your capabilities to select assets to take forward. So I guess, how do you do that? Like, how do you make that decision on what to take forward? Just talk about your thought process, how you prioritize assets to take forward. Absolutely. The most important decision really is at the beginning when you decide which targets even to pursue, and what we're looking for really are ideas that meet, you know, to the highest degree possible. You can't always get perfect scores on all four, but four criteria. Number one, we really need to like the science, right? So often that means we're looking at biology that is, you know, that is clear and that is de-risked, and it is really just about finding an antibody that achieves the function and not a question of whether there is function, right? So we need to like the science. The second is we need to see a significant commercial opportunity, you know, which means a significant unmet medical need, right? Chasing, you know, ideas that are of marginal, you know, benefit overall is just not worth it. Somewhat related to that, you want to, you know, we want to have a clear opportunity for differentiation, right? Often, targets that, you know, meet other criteria are ones where a small molecule might already exist. If that small molecule is doing a great job already, then, you know, there's no point in developing another medicine, but often that's not the case, and so an opportunity to really differentiate must be there. Then finally, and importantly, because we are, you know, of course not, you know, not a large experienced drug developer yet, choosing programs based on a, you know, really clear, feasible development path, where we have it in our power to take, you know, if we're successful in finding a drug candidate, to take it to a point of real value inflection, and so those are the four criteria that we look for. Again, you don't always find perfect scores in them, but where you do often find good opportunities is in our sweet spot of very difficult targets to raise antibodies against. That is, you know, historically our core strength, and with that, often, you know, you will find that the potential for differentiation, you know, clarity of science, and a, you know, large unmet medical need are often present. Excellent. And then, as you make these, you know, target selection decisions, are you thinking about this from a portfolio-wide approach where you look for, you know, therapeutic area synergies, immunology, metabolic, whatever, or is this more of a, you're building a portfolio of discrete first and/or best-in-class assets or some of both? I'd say the lead consideration is going after things that have where we have the potential to be first in class and that have an opportunity that, you know, could yield blockbuster status for a drug if we are successful is the most important thing, and our platform is agnostic, right? We have capabilities in terms of antibody discovery and development. They're not specific to any one therapeutic area, not even to any one specific modality, so from within that set, we're choosing, you know, the best opportunities. Having said that, it is quite possible that we will find, you know, maybe down the line to a degree, that there are natural synergies between a program that we're already excited about, you know, and something adjacent or, you know, combined or, you know, where in some other way we can generate, where we can generate leverage, learnings that are mutually beneficial between programs. So, you know, I'd expect us to keep identifying and advancing programs at a rate of targeting one to three roughly development candidates a year. They will come from a range of therapeutic areas so that, you know, when you look five years out, it's quite feasible that we've got somewhere around a dozen programs in various stages of preclinical and clinical development, maybe with some clustering in, in indications or therapeutic areas, but, but not by design, if you will. Maybe a last kinda strategic question is, you know, is there come a time when the best way to maximize value to AbCellera, is to take an asset all the way through, you know, pivotal trials, commercialization, or just how is that thinking, evolving, you know, as a company evolves? Yeah, it's a good question. And, it is something that we, you know, we think about carefully. The overriding principle is let's make sure that we're optimizing value. And in that sense, each program is unique, right? For each program, both, you know, what we can readily do, readily or feasibly do ourselves, may be different, where along the clinical development path you really get the inflection point, where, you know, where it's becoming apparent that you're really onto something that has promise, can be different. And importantly, the point where a capable partner can add significant value over and above what we could do ourselves will also be different. And so we're, for each program, carefully thinking about, you know, what are the possible development paths, how do these factors weigh? It's, you know, it's a bit too early to know, but it's quite possible that with, you know, 575, like with our two lead programs, 575 and 635, we may be somewhere on the opposite ends of the spectrum, right? In OX40 ligand targeting, it's quite possible that the program could really benefit from a, you know, from a broad experienced I&I player with a capability to pursue multiple indications in parallel would be really valuable. With 635, it's conceivable that we could take the program through a pivotal trial, even a registration, ourselves. Excellent. That's a good kinda segue to your internal programs. You know, maybe starting with 635, we know a couple things about it, right? It's a, it's going against an undisclosed GPCR or ion channel target for metabolic endocrine conditions. That's about it. I mean, for competitive reasons, we don't know much more. I guess any color, you know, on why this asset was selected as an AbCellera-led program, and kinda what makes you think this could be something you take through the pivotals, you know, to the extent that you can provide color, that would be helpful. Yeah. I think I can add a little bit of color to that picture. One is it is no secret that we chose it because it scores really well on our four criteria of we like the science. It's a meaningful opportunity, and I, I think we've indicated that we see a market opportunity in excess of $2 billion a year. There's very good developability and differentiation, right? It's, you know, it being first in class, that's definitely the case. I think in addition, you know, you touched on it, it is a complex membrane protein target. So another reason to choose it is because it allows us to demonstrate that we indeed have the capability to go after targets where others have been technology limited when it comes to antibody drug development. The you know the secrecy around the program of course is for strategic reasons right? There are some programs and we might talk about that some more. There are some programs where you can be pretty sure that nobody else will be able to follow in your footsteps. This is a difficult target but we don't wanna encourage anybody to you know to try and even against the odds get lucky. We have indicated like you said it's in a metabolic or endocrine condition but it is not this one is not an obesity maybe important to point out. Yeah, no, that makes sense with the $2 billion guidance also. Maybe then on 575, you know, the OX40 ligand targeting asset, can you just, like, walk us through some of the points of differentiation there? You know, it's ligand targeting, it's non-depleting, just in kinda what gives you confidence that this could be best in class in a more crowded space? Yeah. Good question. You know, maybe a bit back to the origins of that program. That was originally a co-development program with EQRx. EQRx were pursuing a fast follower strategy, where we had said, you know, fast follower makes sense to the degree that we think we've got an angle on also being best in class. At some point, EQRx, following the acquisition by Revolution, you know, wasn't a co-developing partner anymore. We liked 575 because we saw that it does have potential for that differentiation. Chiefly, we're seeing really good half-life and stability, right? So there is, I think it's the most important possible point of differentiation and angle where we can see a longer dosing interval, which, you know, does in atopic dermatitis and in other I&I conditions make a real difference for patients. And you touched on it, you know, at least compared to depleting antibodies, the fact that it's non-depleting is helpful. You know, I think the data we're seeing so far suggests you absolutely do not need to destroy the target. You just need to block the interaction between OX40 and the ligand to achieve the therapeutic effect. You know, we're also seeing really good developability for the molecule, both, you know, behavior in manufacturing, you know, and in suspension is really good. So it looks like a really clean molecule with the potential for extended dosing intervals. I think those are the key things. We're also seeing that the market opportunity is quite significant. I mean, atopic dermatitis alone is a huge market, and there are, you know, many other conditions where it seems that the pathway is, you know, meaningfully implicated. And yes, it is a, you know, we're not the only ones in this space, but we do feel that we're part of the leading pack, right? Along with amlitelimab from Sanofi and APG's molecule, you know, we feel we're out there. And you know, if anything, we've seen in large I&I conditions that there's room for more than one to achieve blockbuster status if successful. Excellent, and then something you've touched on is that already today you've been clearly planning to move more internal assets into IND enabling studies at a pretty regular cadence going forward. So I guess a couple things on that. Could you first help us understand the communication strategy as more of these. Mm-hmm. You know, under IND-enabling stages, you know, keeping them like 635 or more descriptive like 575 or the TCE platform, which would make it easier to kinda model and, you know, understand the downstream value. So that's kinda the first question. Then, you know, more broadly is how do you think about the appropriate level of spend or investment on internal programs, you know, now and then, you know, into 2026 and thereafter? Yeah. Let's start with the disclosure question. So we do anticipate being able to move, you know, somewhere between one and three, maybe on average around two, but it's, you know, hard to predict, candidates into preclinical development a year. The disclosure, you know, I mean, everybody is always itching internally, certainly, and obviously externally, to share, find out, what it is that we're working on. I think the general pattern here is going to be that on targets where we think there is competitive tension, we will keep quiet, just to maximize the value of the opportunity. But there may be targets, you know, and I'm not prepared to commit to they will be in the next development candidates, but there are targets where we can imagine developing antibodies against them being so difficult that we are not worried about competition. And in those cases, we would want to share, you know, pretty broadly, pretty clearly with preclinical data, what we have achieved and what we're going after. So that, you know, that would be, that would be the hope, that we have that, you know, somewhere early, but at the margin, we'll, we'll probably, you know, opt for discretion as, you know, as it seems most, most drug developers do. As to your, you know, as to your other question, the pace at which we're looking to make investments, we've got a pretty healthy balance sheet, and we're not short of good ideas. So we will continue to invest in programs at a pace that can be matched with our existing capabilities and capacity. So if you look at roughly the size of the organization that we have with a bit of build-out of the manufacturing team, but a build-out in the, on the clinical and regulatory side, that is roughly the team that we will keep busy, you know, with some of our partner-initiated work, but increasingly heavily with AbCellera-led programs. The marginal cost, you know, once you have that capability in place, the marginal cost of taking something to the clinic, is relatively modest. And so mostly will be capacity limited, right? So that pace of one, two, three development candidates a year really is a function of. We believe we have an organization today and one that we can continue to fund going forward over, you know, well beyond the next three years, to keep building out that pipeline internally. Excellent. Maybe turning to some of your partnerships, I was particularly struck by partnerships with Regeneron and Lilly where, you know, both of those companies have expanded partnerships with AbCellera pretty recently. It seems to stand out as an endorsement of, you know, the value of the AbCellera program. I'm just hoping you can kinda explain the background there, you know, why that doubling down is important, what that means, what does that say about the AbCellera program and, you know, your continued interest in those high-value partnerships. Yes. Lilly and Regeneron in particular, and there are others, but let's stick with those two as examples are really, you know, really excellent partners for us. And so we're, you know, we're very happy to expand on the work that we have been doing with them on several programs already. They bring us exciting and challenging targets, right? And so that, you know, that translates both into, you know, interesting learnings for us, but also into downstream positions in molecules that, you know, that they believe and that we believe have significant potential. You know, the interesting thing about the renewal, of course, is this comes on the back of top-tier drug developers in the antibody space, both respectively, undoubtedly, you know, having seen on several programs the work that we have done, successfully against very difficult targets, and them also saying, "Hey, we've got more such target ideas, and you're still the best people to, you know, to work on these programs." So, you know, in our view, that is good validation. Certainly, you know, internally we feel it clearly, you know, the partner is feeling it, and we're hoping that that also becomes increasingly visible externally. It's nice to get recognition, but the other, the other element to this, of course, is by deepening those partnerships, we're hopefully also laying the foundation, you know, for possible conversion of our internal programs into the hands of super capable partners, you know, if and when that makes sense. Yeah. Excellent. I think, you know, a couple months ago or this past spring, you announced a company creation collaboration with Viking and ArrowMark, starting in the field of immunology. Can you just discuss that strategy there? You know, when are we gonna start hearing more about this? Any color there is helpful. Yeah. So the strategy is pretty straightforward, right? We do find venture capitalists, occasionally, you know, here I'll loosely group ArrowMark, in their similarity with, you know, Versant and Viking, that spend a good amount of time and successfully identify new ideas for therapeutics, ideas that we, you know, didn't have ourselves internally. So they bring the ideas and they bring capital to try these programs, right? And so there's a really nice synergy between ideas and capital and our, you know, turnkey capabilities to really go from those concepts all the way to the clinic, and in those circumstances, you know, it makes sense to work together, particularly because, you know, we otherwise may not have had those ideas. In fact, typically we wouldn't have had those particular ideas. We've got the capability to bring to the table without having to commit our own capital, still committing capacity, but not, you know, not our capital, to those programs. And of course, if you are on the other side of the table, your alternative would be to stand up a team, found a company, you know, pull together a mesh of CROs before you can even get going, right? It's also from the perspective of our partners, you know, a very efficient, fast way of, you know, getting to the point where you can try out your therapeutic idea in the clinic. And I think that's the, you know, that really is the rationale there. Given that, you know, this is a pretty efficient approach and they are, you know, well-respected, well-funded, venture capital partners, my expectation is that you probably won't hear more details about those programs until they get to the clinic, you know, unless they feel the need to, you know, raise funds earlier. I'd suspect that'll stay quiet till then. Yep. Makes sense. I think we're about to run up on time. We have a couple minutes. So maybe we'll last touch on the TCE platform. You know, I think you had some data at SITC a couple weeks ago. Walk us through that update, and then your current thinking on the status of a potential partnership, partnerships. And also just your sense of, you know, has interest in TCEs for autoimmune indications kind of changed or evolved, your partnering strategy or your discussions there? Yep. Super. So TCE is definitely super hot space, as you indicate, you know, not just in solid tumors, but also in autoimmune conditions. We have shared that we've got one internal program against CD19 there. The data that we shared at SITC and AACR and really at, you know, consecutive meetings, is painting the picture that our, you know, that we've got a complete successful toolkit that proves the initial hypothesis that you need to have broad variety, particularly in CD3 engagers and the ability to, you know, find optimal and pair with optimal target engagers to widen your therapeutic window where you're getting efficient and deep tumor cell tumor-dependent cell killing without triggering significant cytokine release, right? So there, so we've shown that works at SITC. This year we added some data to demonstrate that we can, you know, that we have antibodies that can just successfully go after CD3, but also after gamma delta, on the T cell, and we also share data on CD28 engagers as a co-stimulatory tool in the box, if you will. In terms of partnering strategy, you know, I think it's every player in this space is aware of what we're doing and has expressed, you know, deep respect and interest in what we're advancing. You know, the field has gone through some ups and downs in terms of excitement. I think at the moment excitement is high. Multiple conversations are going well. You know, it's not something we control. And that's part of the reason why we're, you know, advancing internal programs so that we, you know, we also have assets in the game. We're open to partnering deals that could, you know, take the shape from all the way from access to the CD3s or other tools in the panel through us running discovery on the target arm, coming back with a development candidate, for example, or of course outlicensing programs that we have taken forward internally. You know, fingers crossed that's around the corner, but, you know, you never know. Never know. Well, it looks like we are out of time, but thanks so much for being here and kind of giving us that picture into the company. Thank you, Ally. Pleasure to be here. All right. All right. How are you? Good to see you, in person. How's your day going? It's going well. It's been very busy. Good. I'm gonna get the mic turned on now. Okay, let's go ahead and get started. My name is Ally Bratzel, a biotech analyst here at Piper Sandler. Thanks for joining us at our healthcare conference. It's my pleasure now to introduce Engine. Joining us today for fireside, we have Chief Strategy and Operations Officer Alex Nichols. This is meant to be, you know, informal. If anyone in the audience has a question, just raise your hand and we'll get to it, but just kinda jumping into Q & A.