Good afternoon and welcome to AbCellera's First Quarter 2025 Business Update and Conference Call. My name is Jasmine, and I will facilitate the audio portion of today's interactive broadcast. All lines will be muted during the presentation portion of the call, with the opportunity for questions and answers at the end. If you would like to ask a question, press star one on your telephone keypad. If any assistance is needed during the call, please press star zero to speak with an operator. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Tryn Stimart, AbCellera Chief Legal and Compliance Officer. You may proceed. Thank you. Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for AbCellera's First Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. I'm Tryn Stimart, AbCellera's Chief Legal and Compliance Officer. Dr. Carl Hansen, AbCellera's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew Booth, AbCellera's Chief Financial Officer, are joining me on today's call. During this call, we anticipate making projections and forward-looking statements based on our current expectations and according to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our actual results could differ materially due to several factors outlined in our latest Form 10-K and subsequent Forms 10-Q and 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. AbCellera is not obligated to update any forward-looking statements, whether due to new information, future events, or otherwise. Our presentation today, including our earnings press release and SEC filings published earlier today, are available on our investor relations website. The information we provide about our pipeline is for the benefit of the investment community and is not intended to be promotional. As we transition to our prepared remarks, please note that all dollars referred to during the call are U.S. dollars. After our prepared remarks, we will open the lines for questions and answers. Now, I'll turn the call over to Carl. Thanks, Tryn, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today. This first quarter, we continue to execute against our key priorities for 2025, which include initiating phase I clinical trials for ABCL 635 and ABCL 575, nominating one or more additional development candidates, and moving these into CTA-enabling studies, completing platform investments, and starting to use our clinical manufacturing capabilities. Today, my prepared remarks are focused on providing additional details about ABCL 635, including revealing its target and indication for the first time. ABCL6 35 is a potential first-in-class therapeutic antibody being developed for non-hormonal treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, more commonly known as hot flashes, that are associated with menopause. ABCL 635 targets neurokinin-3 receptor, or NK3R, which is a GPCR involved in endocrine homeostasis and thermoregulation. Notably, ABCL 635 is the first program from our GPCR and ion channels platform to advance into our pipeline. On our last earnings call, we discussed how we assess program investment decisions, and this slide summarizes our view of ABCL 635 in each of the four dimensions of our investment framework. First, starting with the science, the NK3R pathway is well understood and has been clinically validated with small molecules, giving us high confidence in the biology. Accordingly, we believe the main scientific risk for ABCL 635 is whether or not we can achieve sufficient target engagement. From a commercial perspective, VMS associated with menopause presents a large unmet medical need and a significant market opportunity. Approximately 30% of women experience moderate to severe VMS at some point in their lives, with more than half seeking treatment. ABCL 635 has the potential to be the first antibody therapy in the NK3R class, a market estimated to reach over $2 billion in annual sales. With respect to differentiation, ABCL 635 has the potential to be a first-in-class antibody treatment for VMS, with dosing every four weeks and an improved safety profile as compared to small molecules. This program has a well-established development path with potential for important early readouts on biomarkers and efficacy. VMS represents an underserved, underappreciated, and serious unmet medical need. They impact the well-being, the productivity, the career advancement, and the income of millions of women in North America alone. In the U.S., there are approximately 40 million women of menopausal age. VMS are the most common symptoms of menopause, and as I noted earlier, about 30% of women will experience moderate to severe VMS in their lifetimes. The median duration of VMS is seven and a half years. Approximately 12% of women will experience symptoms for more than 10 years, and in some cases, VMS can last for decades. This is why new treatments for VMS are an important addition to available therapies for women who suffer from this serious and long-overlooked condition. Menopause Hormone Therapy, or MHT, is recognized as an effective treatment for VMS and is the current standard of care. While effective, MHT is not for everyone. Approximately 12% of women are contraindicated for MHT, and 8% of women who begin MHT discontinue within 12 months. Additionally, in a recent global study, it was found that 57% of women who were eligible for MHT were against using it. Non-hormonal treatments for VMS are therefore an important option for women who either cannot or who choose not to use MHT. NK3R antagonists have recently been proven as effective non-hormonal options for the treatment of VMS. NK3R is a GPCR protein expressed by KNDy neurons that are located in the infundibular nucleus, also known as the arcuate nucleus, which is a region of the hypothalamus. KNDy neurons play a central role in regulating endocrine reproductive function and also impact thermoregulatory control via an interdependent neuronal pathway. Prior to menopause, KNDy neuronal activity is balanced by stimulatory NKB-NK3R signaling and the inhibitory effect of estrogen. In menopause, when estrogen levels decrease due to the natural process of reproductive aging, this neuronal activity becomes unbalanced. As a result, NKB increasingly binds NK3R, causing KNDy neurons to overactivate and stimulate the thermoregulatory neurons in another region of the brain called the preoptic nucleus, which leads to hot flashes. ABCL 635 was designed to bind to NK3R and to prevent the activation of KNDy neurons by NKB. Blocking NKB-NK3R signaling with small molecules has been clinically shown to reduce both the frequency and severity of VMS associated with menopause. Importantly, the infundibular nucleus responds to soluble factors in the blood and is therefore one of the few specialized areas of the brain that is not isolated behind the blood-brain barrier. Because of this, we believe that ABCL 635 should be able to engage NK3R on KNDy neurons, and our preclinical studies support this hypothesis. Translating this result into humans and confirming that target engagement is sufficient to reduce VMS is the key scientific risk in this program. There are two small molecule NK3R antagonists that have recently been demonstrated clinically to be both safe and effective. Therefore, ABCL 635 has the potential to enter the market at a time when the class has already been established and small molecules are approaching peak sales. Fezolinetant, a once-daily oral treatment, was approved in May of 2023 and is the first available NK3R antagonist for the treatment of VMS. Elinzanetant, also a once-daily oral treatment, successfully completed phase three trials and is expected to be approved within the year. Unlike Fezolinetant, Elinzanetant is a non-selective antagonist that blocks both NK3R and a related receptor, NK1R. Because ABCL 635 is an NK3R-specific antibody, we expect that it will avoid some side effects that have been observed with small molecules in the clinic. First, unlike small molecules that are metabolized in the liver, antibodies are generally not associated with liver toxicity. Second, because ABCL 635 is specific to NK3R, we do not expect fatigue or somnolence that is believed to be related to the antagonism of NK1R. In addition to having potential for an improved safety profile, we also believe ABCL 635 can achieve convenient dosing that would be preferred by a large fraction of women with VMS. To confirm this, we conducted a market research survey of 75 women who have VMS and found that, assuming equal efficacy and safety profiles, more than 50% said they would prefer the convenience of a once-monthly injectable over a daily oral treatment. In addition, for the subset of women with experience using autoinjectors, a large majority, approximately 70%, said they would select a once-monthly injectable over a daily pill. In summary, the recent and upcoming approvals of novel non-hormonal treatments for VMS are an important and long-overdue solution for millions of women. ABCL 635 is being developed as a next-generation NK3R antagonist with both an improved safety profile and a more convenient dosing regimen. If ultimately successful, we believe it can be a highly differentiated product that is launched into a large and established market. In terms of timing, our plans include completing the CTA process this quarter, starting our phase I study in Q3 of 2025, and reporting key readouts of safety and early efficacy in mid-2026. As ABCL 635 goes into clinical trials, we have high conviction in the biology, the differentiation thesis, and the unmet medical need. We expect the most important risk regarding target engagement will be addressed in phase I, making this an important near-term clinical readout. Turning to our second program, we have been advancing ABCL 575 concurrently with ABCL 635. It is also on track with a CTA filing in Q2, and we anticipate starting phase I clinical trials in the third quarter. Later this week, our team will be in San Diego presenting preclinical data on ABCL 575 at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology. You can download the poster presentation on our website when it becomes available tomorrow, May 9th. With our first two programs nearing the clinic, our transition from a platform company to a clinical-stage biotech is nearly complete. Behind ABCL 635 and ABCL5 75, we are working on a portfolio of more than 20 internal and co-development programs from which we will continue to build our pipeline. As mentioned earlier, ABCL 635 will be the first clinical program derived from our GPCR and ion channels platform. We view this as an important proof point that our technology can unlock these challenging and high-value target classes, which represent approximately half of our preclinical programs. We expect to elect an additional development candidate from this platform in the near future and look forward to sharing updates with you as they become available. Similarly, we see our T-cell engager platform as a source of internal programs and also as a basis for future partnering activities. Last month, we provided an update on our TCE platform, including in vivo data that was presented at AACR's annual meeting. Finally, investments in building our clinical manufacturing are on track and are nearing completion. We expect to start using these capabilities later this year. With that, I will hand over to Andrew to discuss our financials. Andrew? Thanks, Carl. As Carl pointed out, AbCellera continues to be in a strong liquidity position with approximately $630 million in cash and equivalents and with roughly $180 million in available committed government funding to continue to execute on our strategy. We are continuing our plans with a focus on internal programs and completing our CMC and GMP investments. Looking at our key business metrics, in the fourth quarter, we started to work on one partner-initiated program, which takes us to a cumulative total of 97 programs with downstream participation. We saw no new molecules advancing into the clinic in the quarter, maintaining our cumulative total of 16 molecules to have reached the clinic, and we understand the development of the four Trianni licensed molecules that Novavax advanced into phase one are currently paused. As we have stated previously, we view the overall progress of molecules in the clinic as a potential source of near and mid-term revenue from downstream milestone fees and royalty payments in the longer term. Turning to revenue and expenses, revenue for the quarter was about $4 million, mostly driven by research fees relating to the work on partnered programs. This compares to revenue of $10 million in the same quarter of 2024. As we have mentioned in the past, we expect research fee revenue to continue to trend lower as we increasingly focus on internal and co-development programs. Our research and development expenses for the quarter were approximately $43 million, $3 million more than last year. This expense is driven by increasing investment in our internal and co-development programs. In sales and marketing, expenses for Q1 were about $3 million, a modest reduction relative to the same quarter last year. In general administration, expenses were approximately $16 million compared to roughly $17 million in Q1 of 2024. Looking at earnings, we are reporting a net loss of roughly $46 million for the quarter compared to a loss of around $41 million in the same quarter last year. In terms of earnings per share, this result works out to a loss of $0.15 per share on a basic and diluted basis. Looking at cash flows, operating activities for Q1 of 2025 used approximately $12 million in cash and equivalents. Excluding investments in marketable securities, investment activities amounted to a net $17 million, mostly in property, plant, and equipment driven by our ongoing work to establish CMC and GMP manufacturing capabilities. The investments in PP&E were partially offset by government contributions. As a part of our treasury strategy, we have nearly $450 million invested in short-term marketable securities. Our investment activities for the quarter included approximately a $25 million net decrease in these holdings. Altogether, we finished the quarter with over $630 million of total cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. As a reminder, we have received commitments for funding for our GMP facility and for the advancement of our internal pipeline from the Government of Canada's Strategic Innovation Fund and the Government of British Columbia. This available capital does not show up on our balance sheet. With over $630 million in cash and equivalents and the unused portion of our secured government funding, we have approximately $810 million in total available liquidity to continue executing on our strategy. The cash usage for the remainder of 2025 will continue to prioritize advancing our two lead programs to the clinic, building the preclinical pipeline, and completing our investment in the integrated CMC and GMP capabilities. As previously communicated, the new manufacturing facility is scheduled to come online at the end of 2025. With respect to our overall operating expenses, our capital needs are very manageable. We continue to believe that we have sufficient liquidity to fund well beyond the next three years of increasing pipeline investments. With that, we'll be happy to take questions. Thank you. We will now begin the Q&A portion of the call. If you would like to ask a question, press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. To remove your question, press star followed by two. Again, to ask a question, press star one. As a reminder, if you're using a speakerphone, please remember to pick up your handset before asking a question. We will pause here briefly if questions are registered. Our first question comes from Brendan Smith with TD Securities. You may now proceed. Hi, this is Jackie on for Brendan. Congrats on the quarter, and thank you for taking my question. Maybe just a quick one on 635. What do you expect this asset needs to see in terms of phase I data and any follow-up data to really capture that competitive edge given the head start that peers have? Going beyond just that, it's more of a nicer dose than the preferred kind of type of medicine. Sure. I'm happy to take that question, Carl here. Obviously, there's some recent activity in the approval of NK3R antagonists with Fezolinetant and Elinzanetant. That's a terrific outcome for patients that are looking for non-hormonal treatments. We view the validation and the success of those molecules as very positive for this program. There's going to be some time required to communicate to medical practitioners and patients and to start to build the class. We are positioned with a molecule that would take advantage of that growing awareness and would be positioned, if it is successful, to launch into what has become a large and established class. In terms of what we need to see in the phase I studies, we have not disclosed the design of those studies, but we will be looking, of course, at safety, but also at some very important data on biomarkers, which are an early sign of target engagement. On the latter part of the study, evaluating efficacy in a population of participants. One of the really attractive things about this program is that by midpoint next year, we should have data that tells us a lot about the success of the program and the science. With that, we would be in a position to double down and to invest further. From a differentiation perspective, which was related to part of your question, really, it's two things. The first is we do believe that an antibody that is specific to NK3R can have a cleaner safety profile, which is something that we believe is highly valued and differentiated. Perhaps even more in differentiation is the dosing. As mentioned in my prepared remarks, we have conducted a study that shows that a majority of women would prefer to have a once-monthly subcutaneous self-administered injection over a daily pill. For women that have experience with autoinjectors, that number goes up to about 70%. With the growing use of autoinjectors, particularly in the GLP-1 class, we see that as a trend that's going to continue to grow over time. It's a matter of convenience. It's a matter of compliance. People that have busy lives would prefer to have something that is something you do once a month and then you don't have to worry about it after that. If we are successful, and of course, we're just at the very beginning of this, our eyes are laser-focused on getting this early data. If successful, again, it launches into a large class, and we think that there's a significant population, in fact, a majority that would prefer that format. Yeah, that's very helpful. Thank you. Maybe just a quick one. What should we expect to see from the upcoming 575 preclinical data tomorrow presented at the medical meeting? Sure. Yeah. We are presenting at SID, as I mentioned. The preclinical data will include some early animal work that supported the filing. Probably the most important data is the first glimpse at PK analysis and predictions of what that would lead to in human studies. The main pillar of differentiation for ABCL 575 is that we believe it will be differentiated in having a superior dosing regimen. We are aiming for having at least three-month, if not six-month dosing. We are optimistic that you will be pleased with the data when you see it. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Andrea Newkirk with Goldman Sachs. You may now proceed. Hi, all. This is Telani on for Andrea. Thanks for taking the questions and congrats on the progress. Just another quick one on 635. Given the risk you had mentioned facing the program around translatability of the NK3R engagement from the preclinical studies into humans, is there a precedent you could point to that gives you confidence that those observations will still hold in the clinical setting? That's a great question. We have preclinical data, including data on NHP, that give us a lot of reason to be optimistic that this will translate into humans. I think I am being circumspect largely because drug development is a humbling industry, and you're often surprised. Of course, non-human primates are not humans, so it needs to be shown there. In terms of precedent, there are some antibodies, I believe, CGRP receptor, that are in a similar part of the brain. There is some precedent. This is a different pathway and the details of where the neurons are in that part of the brain. Of course, behind that, whether or not we have complete understanding of the pathway, which we believe we do, but sometimes you can be surprised, all of those things need to be de-risked. The important thing for ABCL 635 is that the development path allows us to test both of those main risks early in clinical development through a biomarker readout and early efficacy. It's not that I would bet against it, but I think in all drug development, we should be cautious and not assume that things are going to translate directly from non-human primate to humans. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Just one more, if I may. With both 575 and 635 now advancing into the clinic, how are you thinking about the next development candidates? Is there any line of sight at this time as to what targets or indications might be selected or of interest? Sure. I'll take that one again. Yeah. We are building our portfolio and making investment decisions according to the framework that I outlined in some detail in the last earnings call and that I alluded to at the start today. Basically, we're looking for high conviction biology with a large unmet medical need, a compelling case for differentiation, and importantly, a development path that allows us to get as much information as quickly as possible and that does not pose undue risk or require a huge amount of time and money to get to those early answers. Beyond that, we are target agnostic. We have been looking broadly across indications, broadly across biology to look for opportunities that we're excited about. A substantial portion of that effort has brought us to the difficult target classes, so ion channels and GPCRs. As I said in my prepared remarks, it's likely that the next development candidate that will come up will be another one that is either a GPCR or ion channel that builds on what has been years of technology and capability building to unlock that class. We're quite excited about that. Typically, we will not be discussing targets or indications until a program has moved at least to development candidate. Once it is a development candidate, we will disclose the indication and the target if we believe that that is strategically wise. We will avoid doing that if we think that there's downside in terms of competition. Depending on what the target is, we'll either disclose very early, as we did with 575, or we will hold it closer to our chest and disclose it closer to CTA filing, as we have done with NK3R. Makes sense. Thank you. Our next question comes from Puneet Souha with Leerink Partners. You may now proceed. My first one has to do with the 575 asset. During the quarter, we saw some updates from Rocatinlimab as well as Amlitelimab and asthma. I was wondering if you had any comments on how those readouts inform your updated view of the opportunities for the particular asset. Yes. Carl here. I'm happy to take that one. Thanks for the question, Puneet. First of all, our investment thesis in 575 is reinforced by the hypothesis that the OX40 ligand class is going to be a huge class, important not just in atopic dermatitis, which is obviously a huge market, but also will find applications across other indications. Over the last quarter, I think there's been several points that confirm and reinforce that hypothesis. There is the Sanofi trial in asthma. While they did not read out on the top line, there was a subset of patients for which they got 70% responses, which is excellent. That subset of patients are the patients with high eosinophil counts, which is the same patient group for which DUPIXENT is being used. We view that as a very strong positive signal that OX40 ligand is going to have applications and be an important therapeutic option in asthma. Of course, Sanofi has put their money where their mouth is. They are advancing that into phase three. We see that as a very positive outcome. In addition to that, there was a readout for another OX40, OX40 ligand molecule imaging with some early efficacy in alopecia, which again highlights that OX40 ligand will have applications broadly in INI. While it has not been widely covered, Sanofi has decided to advance an OX40 ligand TNF- alpha bispecific for HS. That is another example of OX40 ligand being important in HS and also reinforces a second pillar of our investment thesis, which is that OX40 ligand is a particularly good pathway, or OX40, OX40 ligand is a particularly good pathway for combination therapy. You asked also about Rocatinlimab. They've released additional data. I mean, I would say that the data is disappointing compared to what has been seen with Amlitelimab. It's not clear if that is a reflection of the difference between targeting OX40 ligand and OX40, or if it's a difference with the mechanism of action because Rocatinlimab is, of course, a depleting antibody, whereas we have an Fc effector null variant, which will not deplete cells. All of that we view as being very positive and a tailwind for the program. In our shop, we're currently focused on getting the early phase one data. The most important part of that is going to be demonstrating the long extended PK. A lot of the big catalysts are going to come from outside AbCellera. Examples of the OX40, OX40 ligand class working in other indications or working in combination are things that we believe add value to that program and make it more attractive going forward. We are keeping an eye on that just like you are. Okay. I have one that is maybe a bit of a deep cut, but given pharmacare, there has been a lot of talk about where IP gets domiciled. As a Canada-based company, I was wondering if that becomes an element of the discussion when you are thinking about spinning off assets to potential partners. Hey, thanks. It is Andrew here. I think at the moment, we have not had a discussion in terms of spinning off assets. We have our intellectual property up here in Canada. For now, it remains a good jurisdiction for us to hold intellectual property. We have not had many discussions further than that. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Malcolm Hoffman with BMO. You may now proceed. Hi. Mark Mossman on for Evan Seigerman from BMO. You called out four Novavax molecules in the clinic that have been paused. Can you provide some more context to this pause and what it means for future development? And then kind of extending off the conversation around IP and tariffs, I know a decent amount of the manufacturing capabilities for AbCellera are based in Canada. Is there any consideration for potentially producing US-based manufacturing redundancies to kind of address that potential risk in the future? Thank you. Yeah, sure. I am happy to take that one. With regard to the Novavax molecules, I think we just thought it prudent to disclose what we had seen on their own website. We believe it's related to fundraising, which is not uncommon in the present environment for them to complete fundraising in order to continue those trials. We'll keep an eye on that and give any updates as we see it. With regards to the manufacturing facility, we do have this manufacturing facility in Canada. Right now, we have built this manufacturing facility in order to support us in our phase one, phase two clinical trials, so still during research phase of manufacturing the product. As you know, as we have mentioned, our first two molecules, we are advancing them through to CTA in Canada. Even as it's still, even if we start trials in the United States, I don't believe it will be an issue in moving those products over the border in order to conduct those clinical trials. We haven't given any thought. It's still quite early to think about when we get to commercial, when we think about commercial manufacturing for any of these molecules, where that might be done. That's still a topic for much in the distant future. Appreciate it. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Our next question comes from K ripa Devarakonda, with Truist. You may now proceed. Hey, guys. Congrats on all the progress. Thank you so much for taking my question. I know you've not yet talked about trial design, but as you go through your planning, I was wondering if there are any specific learnings from all the other trials relevant to 635 that have already been done that can help you optimize your trials. Also, if I'm not mistaken, as a target, NK3R has had a long history in terms of drug development with earlier trials focused on neuropsychiatry. Wondering if there's good enough understanding and if that could be, I know it's really early stages, but if there is a potential to expand beyond VMS. Thank you. Carl here. I'll take that. I'm actually not aware of the development of NK3R in neurological indications. I think there is some precedent for NK1R, which is the second target that is hit by Elinzanetant. Beyond that, I don't think I'd be able to comment. Coming back to the development path, it is a big advantage that there is a clear development path that has now been successfully navigated by two products. It's obvious what the final endpoints should be, the patient population, how to set that up. We have an advantage from that perspective in that we don't have a lot of ambiguity as to what will be the bar for getting approval of ABCL 635. We haven't yet disclosed details of the clinical development plan. As per my previous comments, our emphasis right now is to design the first trial and not to pull punches so that we can take as much risk off the table as soon as possible. We are looking in this first trial not just to get a look at safety, which we believe will be good, but you always have to prove that, but also to get early evidence from biomarkers on target engagement and an early read on efficacy. Once we have that in hand, if it looks the way that we hope, we would be working to accelerate the path forward to development. There is already some thinking and planning around that. Of course, it depends upon regulatory engagement and on the data that we get from the phase I trial. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Stephen Wiley with Stifel. You may now proceed. Hey, thanks for taking our question. This is Josh on for Steve. Quick one on 635. In terms of the development plan, do you think you and I know you've said that you haven't really disclosed the full plan just yet, but do you think you'd have to go into healthy volunteers first to kind of establish the preliminary PK, PD, and safety analyses? Just to follow up on some of the questions related to biomarkers and target engagement, could you maybe just provide us with some color on what types of biomarkers you'll be looking at preliminarily to get a sense as to the target engagement here? I just have a follow-up. Sure. Yeah. The short answer is in the early part of the trial, we will be enrolling healthy volunteers. Connecting that with your second question, we expect to enroll both male and female healthy volunteers. The most reliable biomarker of NK3R engagement would be testosterone levels. That is probably one of the early readouts that we get, which gives you some strong evidence of target engagement. Of course, that is not conclusive until you can show that also translates into efficacy. Great. Thank you. My follow-up was on the PSMA by CD3 T-cell engager presentation you guys made at AACR. Could you just maybe tell us about—and I know it's early—but is there anything you could tell us about which format you currently believe can have the best target profile in terms of threading the needle on both efficacy and safety as it pertains to CRS risk? Is this—what's the timeline for maybe nominating a development candidate? Is there kind of an appetite for out-licensing with BD, or is this something that you maybe want to develop internally? Yeah. I'll start with the question about format. Honestly, that is the multi-billion dollar question that everyone across the industry is trying to answer. At AACR, as in previous years, at a high level, there is increasing, I'd say, accelerating enthusiasm for TCE as a class. A lot of that has been driven by very exciting data in solid tumors. When you talk to all the different groups, it's also apparent that it doesn't look as though there's going to be one technology and one solution that is the magic bullet for every solid tumor or for every target. Many pharma companies and the big players who have committed to the space—and I would say that list is growing quickly—are placing multiple bets because you need to do these experiments in the clinic to find out what is working. Our approach to this has been to not cut corners, but to do the hard work to put in place the tools, the workflows, the assays to start to systematically investigate which targets, which formats, which modalities, perhaps even combinations with co-stimulation are going to be needed to get efficacy and tolerable safety in the clinic. That foundation is allowing us to make, in our shop, what I believe is some pretty rapid progress. We are, of course, only one company in an ecosystem that is working on this problem. We are also working with partners to solve this as well. When we start to get a hook on the science or when the breakthroughs come, we are going to be very well positioned to capitalize on that. We are already seeing some really promising results with some of the internal programs. You asked if we would be open to licensing—out-licensing—or if we would bring them into the portfolio. I think both those options are on the table. I said in my prepared remarks, we see this as both a platform for building our pipeline as well as for partnering. We make those decisions based on the opportunity and the framework that I described in response to the previous question. TBD there. We are increasingly excited about the TCE space. It should be no surprise to anyone that if the class is to have the promise that everyone believes it does, which is to provide perhaps not curative, but very meaningful treatments to patients who have no options in cancer, that is not something that is going to come easily. It is going to take the combined efforts of many groups in the clinic as well as in the lab. That is something we are committed to. We think it is going to be a long game. Okay. Great. Thank you for taking our questions. Thank you. There are no questions waiting at this time. I'll pass the conference back over to the management team for any further remarks. No further remarks. Just thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We're excited about the progress and looking forward to the next call. Take care. That concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect your line.