Greetings. Welcome to the June Aesthetics KB304 Clinical Data Update conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Nishant Saxena. Please go ahead. Good afternoon and thank you all for joining today's call. Earlier today we announced positive safety and efficacy results for June's KB304 Phase 1 Pearl 2 study, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study for moderate to severe wrinkles in the decolletage. The press release is available on the Krystal Biotech website at www.krystalbio.com and the June website at www.juneinc.com. Both the press release and today's presentation have also been included as exhibits to Krystal Biotech's Form 8-K. Joining me today will be Mark Forth, Chief Executive Officer of June, September Reichart, Chief Marketing Officer of June, and Suma Krishnan, Founder and President of Research and Development at Krystal Biotech. This presentation and our responses to questions may contain forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements, which are based on current expectations using the information available as of the date of this webcast and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that may cause the company's actual results to differ materially from those projected. A description of these risks, uncertainties, and other factors can be found in Krystal Biotech's SEC filings. With that, I'm pleased to turn the presentation to Mark Forth, Chief Executive Officer of June. Thanks Nishant. We are very excited to be sharing today's clinical data update on KB304, which is designed to deliver full-length human collagen III and elastin to the skin. As you will soon see, I think this update highlights the potential of our unique approach to addressing the underlying biology of aging skin. Before sharing the data, as a reminder, I'd like to talk about how June is structured and the support that Krystal currently provides to June. June is a wholly owned subsidiary of Krystal and leverages Krystal's proprietary technology platform in cash pay indications. It is a validated platform that to date has resulted in one approved drug, Vyjuvek, for the treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Krystal provides June with exceptional capabilities across R&D, regulatory, manufacturing, legal, human resources, and finance. June is leveraging Krystal's technology of using a modified vector designed to repeatedly deliver the appropriate genes to skin cells of interest and reverse the trend of extracellular matrix decline associated with aging. If we turn to slide 5, just a few words on KB304 before we get into the data. KB304 was designed to deliver both collagen III, a gene that encodes the pro alpha 1 chains of type III collagen, and the elastin gene that encodes elastin. As you may know, humans have plentiful amounts of collagen III when young, but as we age, production of collagen III diminishes. While less abundant than collagen I, collagen III is critical for skin pliability and repair, and its degradation is one of the primary contributors to thin, aged skin. Additionally, while elastin is estimated to only constitute 2 to 3% of the dermis, it plays a crucial function in the appearance of healthy skin. Elastin expression is highest in early development, and expression decreases during adulthood. Age-related reduction in elastin production and damage to the elastin have a substantial impact on the skin's appearance, resulting in looser, sagging, and fragile skin. Elastin and elastic fibers are particularly vulnerable to intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as sun damage in that there is a very low and slow turnover. The overall half-life of elastin is estimated at more than 70 years. KB304 is designed to supplement collagen III and elastin expression from an individual's own skin cells, restoring protein levels and rejuvenating the skin. I'll now turn the presentation to September Reichart, Chief Marketing Officer at June, who will introduce the study and share the results. September, thank you. Pearl 2 is a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of KB304 evaluating dynamic wrinkles in the decolletage in an adult female population. The decolletage is a target site with no approved injectables and a priority area for subjects as it is highly susceptible to premature aging and damage. A total of 19 subjects were enrolled and treated in the study. One subject discontinued the study, so 18 subjects were assessed through the three-month follow-up. The subjects enrolled in the study ranged in age from 47 to 75 years old, and the median age was 62. The study was randomized 2 to 1, with 12 subjects receiving KB304 injected with a 33-gauge needle and 7 subjects receiving the placebo, which was saline and was also injected with a 33-gauge needle. We evaluated KB304 safety as well as efficacy, with efficacy assessed by both the investigator and the subjects utilizing the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale or GAIS. Subjects also reported on their overall satisfaction with their wrinkle appearance using the Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire. In today's readout, we will be presenting safety and efficacy results as assessed 1, 2, and 3 months after completing 3 treatments, which were each injected 2 weeks apart. Safety findings are summarized here. KB304 was generally well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with previous clinical studies of KB301. Injection site reactions have all been within the expected range of aesthetic injectables, with all reported as mild to moderate and transient. Adverse events were primarily related to the initial treatment, and the frequency and severity of adverse events decreased with repeat treatments. We had no reported AEs in the placebo arm. We saw clear and clinically meaningful improvements in wrinkles of the decolletage for those subjects treated with KB304 and a clear separation between the active and placebo arms. Starting with the GAIS results, the study investigator reported an improvement of 1 point or better in 100% of the subjects treated with KB304 at all three assessments. The subjects' self-assessment on the GAIS also shows clear separation between the KB304 active arm and the placebo arm. The KB304 subjects reported an improvement in decolletage wrinkles of at least 1 point in 72.7% of the subjects at the first and third assessment, and at the second assessment, 90.9% of the subjects reported at least a 1 point or better improvement in wrinkles of their decolletage. In addition to wrinkles, the GAIS tool also captures other key skin quality attributes. As this slide shows, KB304 had a 100% responder rate by the final assessment on elasticity, crepiness, hydration, radiance, and texture as reported by the investigator. On this. Slide, we have highlighted subject assessments on these same skin attributes. This is an exciting finding and points to the potential benefit of KB304's unique mechanism of collagen III and elastin replenishment to meet the strong demand among injectable aesthetic users for products that go beyond wrinkles and address the overall quality of skin. The Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire includes a question that asks for the subject's willingness to recommend to a family and friend. We can see clear separation between the KB304 treated subjects and those treated with placebo. We also see an increase in satisfaction and a willingness to recommend increasing over time. This data supports KB304 treatment of decolletage wrinkles by directly addressing the underlying biology of aging skin. We believe KB304's unique mechanism to deliver natural skin cell produced collagen and elastin directly to the extracellular matrix will help replenish these proteins and restore a more youthful skin appearance. Here is a before and after picture of one of the study subjects. As you can see from the area identified by the inverted triangle, there is a clear improvement in the appearance of wrinkles in the area of interest, but also a significant improvement in other skin attributes including skin texture, hydration, crepiness, radiance, and elasticity in slide 14. As you can see from the image, this is an older subject with extensive wrinkling and skin crepiness at baseline and you can see how the skin is rebuilt in this older subject. By month three, the crepey skin has completely disappeared in the middle of the chest and now I would like to hand off to Mark to discuss June's plans for KB304 moving forward. Mark, thank you. September, with evidence of improvement across multiple skin attributes and high levels of subject satisfaction, we believe that today's results highlight the potential of our fundamentally rejuvenative approach to replenishing native proteins and restoring youthful vibrancy to the skin. We have selected the decolletage as the indication for Phase 2 development. As you may recall, we were developing a decolletage-specific photonumeric scale and an assessment tool for patient-reported outcomes. I'm pleased to say that we have not only completed that process, but we have also validated the scale. We plan to submit that photonumeric scale to the FDA and align on a Phase 2 protocol for KB304 later this year. Our goal is to initiate Phase 2 development in early 2026. Turning to the current market and the potential market opportunity, today's primary aesthetic tools manipulate the skin and are not designed to address the underlying biology of aging. Skin neurotoxins paralyze muscles that create dynamic wrinkles and aren't helpful for areas where there are wrinkles present at rest. Fillers are designed to replace fat and bone loss as a result of the aging process. Energy-based devices purposefully injure the skin to elicit a response. As we have said, our approach is fundamentally different. We seek to replenish native proteins and restore the vibrancy and youthful appearance of the skin. If we turn to slide 18, the ideal primary skin rejuvenation tool will address the root cause of the issue, replenishing the skin's key proteins to rebuild the skin naturally, be injected with standard syringes, and be shipped and stored as other aesthetic injectables. Lastly, it should not require a capital investment. The June technology checks every box. Turning to slide 19, the decolletage remains a high-priority treatment area. This area is highly susceptible to premature aging and damage. There were an estimated 9.9 million cosmetic neurotoxin procedures and 6.3 million filler procedures last year in the U.S. alone, but to date the FDA has not approved any aesthetic injectables for this region. We believe off-label use is minimal because of the unique challenges of treatment in this area of the skin. Lasers are sometimes used to treat this area, but they inflict injury to the skin in the hopes of producing collagen. We believe there is a significant pent-up demand as the decolletage has become an extension of the face, with today's designers showcasing the beauty of the female form in their deep plunging necklines. KB304 is designed to be the ideal treatment to address this aged and pigmented skin by using the body's own natural production of collagen and elastin, and the decolletage is the perfect canvas for our first product candidate. In addition to the significant demand from existing aesthetic patients, there are market expansion trends that could significantly expand the number of patients seeking a more natural approach to rejuvenating their skin. First, the global population spent an estimated $25 billion on skin rejuvenation products and services in 2023. The market has largely been driven by the over-40 patient population. This population is expected to grow by 500 million people to 3.5 billion by 2030. Additionally, there is an increased focus on beauty, wellness, self-care, and aging. We believe these trends will continue and drive greater expenditures on skin treatments. We believe KB304 will appeal to consumers who to date have only purchased over-the-counter or physician-dispensed topical creams. KB304's minimally invasive and natural-looking results have the potential to provide the skin rejuvenation solutions that this market segment has been and continues to seek. Next, demand for minimally invasive procedures such as neurotoxin and filler injections is on the rise in younger demographics, including a reported 50% increase between 2015 and 2020 in the millennial age bracket. Aesthetic treatments are even more accepted and pursued by the Gen Z population in their twenties. The so-called use of Baby Botox. Both the Millennials and Gen Z generations believe in prejuvenation, or treating their skin prior to when wrinkles and before pigmentation issues arise. They are actively looking for minimally invasive, natural-looking skin rejuvenation treatments. Moreover, skin laxity has become a concern following rapid weight loss resulting from the widespread use of GLP-1s. Plastic surgeons have reported that their patients who have lost weight with the GLP-1 have accelerated aging of their skin, making surgical procedures more challenging. KB304 could be used to rebuild the skin prior to or in place of a plastic surgery procedure. Lastly, we believe that there remains a significant untapped market potential. Only 24% of Americans have had an aesthetic or cosmetic procedure, and this number includes dental work. These figures are even lower in other countries. With the growing acceptance and public acknowledgement of celebrities that have had cosmetic procedures, we think this could drive a massive uptick in market demand. Turning to Slide 21, we believe that the existing aesthetic patients will quickly incorporate KB304 into their treatment cycles of neurotoxins and fillers, and consumers who have not advanced beyond over-the-counter or physician-dispensed topical creams will seek out providers that offer the minimally invasive, natural-looking skin rejuvenation provided by KB304, thereby making it their first and only choice in minimally invasive aesthetic treatments. Moving ahead, I would remind you all of the robust pipeline of other product candidates at June. We have already demonstrated strong safety and efficacy data for KB301. With today's announcement, we have decided to prioritize the development of KB304 for the decolletage. Accordingly, we do not plan to move KB301 forward in phase 2 development in the decolletage. Instead, we are evaluating the potential of KB301 in other indications where the expression of collagen III alone could be beneficial. We will make a determination regarding KB301 once we've completed that review. Our vector platform is amenable to the delivery of various payloads, including other extracellular matrix that are high priorities in the field of aesthetics. In earlier stages of development, we have KB303, which is designed to deliver elastin alone, KB302, which is designed to deliver collagen I, and KB305, which is designed to deliver collagen IV. Our goal is to continue to advance our pipeline and move an additional candidate into the clinic within the next 12 to 24 months. Turning to the long-term vision for June, as I mentioned, we plan to progress KB304 into a phase 2 study. We are still evaluating the trial design, protocol, and endpoints for the trial. We expect to have those discussions with the FDA later this year and initiate the phase 2 study in early 2026. As we evaluate other potential indications for KB301, we will continue to evaluate other product candidates with the goal to move another product candidate into the clinic in the next 12 to 24 months. As the pipeline progresses, the need for dedicated resources will expand. June is a wholly owned subsidiary of Krystal and was designed to allow the optionality to pursue and capitalize on value creating events, whether those be a partnership or a separation from Krystal. We will continue to leverage this optionality and evaluate shareholder maximizing opportunities as we deliver on our vision of creating a new category of minimally invasive therapies addressing cash pay markets. Before we open it up to questions, I would just like to end with what I truly believe differentiates June. One, we are leveraging a de-risked validated approach that directly addresses the root cause of aging skin. Second, we have generated substantial data from both KB301 and now KB304. Third, we have a deep pipeline of additional product candidates addressing large attractive cash pay markets. Fourth, we believe we have the right leadership team to move June forward, and five, finally, we are fortunate to be able to leverage Krystal's validated gene delivery platform, comprehensive IP, manufacturing, operational, and regulatory capabilities. Now, Operator, we would like to open the line to questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is now open for questions. If you would like to join the queue to ask a question at this time, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. We do ask if listening on speakerphone today that you pick up your handset while asking your question to provide optimal sound quality. Once again, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad at this time. If you wish to join the queue to ask a question, please hold a moment while we poll for questions. Your first question today is coming from Ritu Baral from TD Cowen. Ritu, your line is live. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. I wanted to ask about the photonumeric scale that you've developed. Can you guys talk about the correlation between that and the GAIS or the PRO that you used and how should we think about that phase two design as far as sizing and powering against that photonumeric scale, and as a quick follow up on the procedure? Okay, thanks Ritu. For the questions related to the photonumeric scale and the GAIS, let's first just cover GAIS. The GAIS is the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. It's a very standard scale commonly used across multiple products in aesthetics. The minimally invasive products currently in the market have used this scale extensively. Importantly, you can only go up two points either direction in this scale. The way that we defined responder of greater than one point, that's how we kind of defined it in the GAIS. That's specific to the wrinkles when we looked at that question. The GAIS is going to be likely a secondary endpoint. You've seen it across multiple products. Very standard in this space. The photonumeric scale will be specific to June. It's our June decolletage wrinkle scale. We have completed and validated as we mentioned in the earlier remarks. We will be meeting with FDA as it relates to the scale alignment, the endpoints, and the phase two protocol design. Early stages on what those will look like, but that will be the focus for us in phase two is aligning on the scale, the protocol, and the endpoints as proposed. Is the photonumeric scale, like, is it an improvement scale or is it like a static scale? Yeah, I'll turn it over to September who can provide a little more detail on that. Go ahead, September. Yeah. Hi. It's a static scale. The concept is at baseline, the subject and the investigator separately would determine the subject's grades at that point. At the assessments, whatever time period that is in our phase two protocol, the same process will take place. The investigator will assess and determine the grade level of the subject at that point, and the subject separately will look at a mirror and determine her grade level as well. Does there need to be alignment in the two or are those scores combined? We don't have, we haven't had those discussions yet with the FDA, so it's too early for us to comment. Got it. Just going back to the administration, I guess like how much office time or procedure time is needed for administration across the decolletage and how much of those AEs as presented on the slide were sort of needle related, administration related, discomfort. Thanks. Sure. Yeah. It's a very tiny 33 gauge needle, so they're just tiny little pin pricks that are dispersed across the decolletage, focused initially on the wrinkle and then dispersed across the decolletage. Time wise, less than five minutes. Because the needle is so tiny, you really don't need to do any sort of pre-numbing of the area. If a patient is needle phobic, you can have ice treatment or something like that, but for the most part it's not necessary. The AE profile was not really related to, for the most part related to the needle poking. It's more just the standard body reaction to the treatment. Got it. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Alec Stranahan from Bank of America. Alec, your line is live. Please go ahead. Hey guys, thanks for the questions. It's been about a year, I think, since we saw the KB301 update. Maybe you could just expand a little bit on your thought process around prioritizing KB304 over KB301 given, you know, I think some of the GAIS scores were fairly comparable both on the one point and two point improvements. What's sort of your thought process given the data you're seeing? How does adding elastin to the mix maybe help with, say, durability or your impression of the overall effect going out beyond three months? Yeah, that's great, Alec, thanks for the question. Just recall that KB301 was an open-label study, whereas Pearl 2 with KB304 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. It's very difficult to kind of compare across trials, of course. We believe that what we're seeing in terms of all the benefits from KB301, we're seeing those in KB304 plus directionally higher improvements across the skin attributes, especially in elasticity and crepiness. We think that those two attributes lend themselves very nicely to the inclusion of elastin. We think that we're seeing good signals as a result of those two attributes. We also have really strong preclinical data that suggests elastin is clearly being expressed as well. It's really based on KB304 and those attributes specific to elasticity and crepiness in addition to the animal data. We think it makes very good sense. To. Move forward with KB304. This is Suma. I can just expand on what Mark said. The nice thing about KB304 is it's a KB301 vector. We basically add elastin so you still express the same amount of collagen III with now added elastin to it. What we see is patients' feedback, they feel the skin is smoother, they feel less crepiness. We think that we see the benefits of KB304 by adding the elastin. Certainly, there is texture quality improvement in the skin. I think we still get all the benefits because it's the same vector, same gene, copies of collagen III with added elastin within the vector. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Maybe one quick follow up on that point. The slide that you presented on the improving over time, one month, two months, and three months. Is that something you also saw with KB301, and I guess what would sort of be your expectation, sort of looking out beyond three months of follow up? Thank you. Yeah, perfect. I'll have September handle that one. September. Yes, we did see that. We did see that continued improvement. With going back to the KB301, we did follow that group for an extended period of time, and we saw durability, and we would expect the same with KB304 for the same reasons that Suma just mentioned. Yeah, and I'm just going to add to what September said. Keep in mind, elastin is a protein and it comes as a pro elastin and then it gets into its fiber formation. Elastin is your neogenesis. I mean, you don't produce elastin, you know, after the pre utero. It's very interesting that it cannot be. People have tried to make it, express it and isolate it ex vivo, almost impossible. I think you don't need much elastin. We hope that elastin is very durable. In animal studies we clearly show not just the pro elastin, but the fiber formation by immunofluorescence in our animal's skin when we treat them. We're pretty excited. I think there will be, obviously we believe that this could be prophylactic even before the skin aging. This is what we need to get into figuring out, you know, to prevent or protect the skin from skin damage and elasticity. That's the first thing that you lose in your decolletage. Right. Because exposure is your skin. You see, the elasticity of the skin is lost. We truly believe now adding that elastin and able to deliver it to the skin, even in small amounts, it's plenty to bring that into the texture. I mean, again, as September said, just using straightforward photonumeric scales. We may also discuss with the agency about other ways, biomarkers or whatever to add elastin to it. This is something again, this is pretty novel, never done before. We will certainly have those discussions with the agency. Great. Thanks for the questions and congrats on the progress. Thanks, Alex. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Roger Song from Jefferies. Roger, your line is live and you may begin. Hi team. This is Fiona on for Roger. Congrats on the data and thank you for taking our questions, a couple questions from us. First, how big is the decolletage segment in the overall aesthetic or rejuvenation market, and is there any potential for KB304 to be expanded to a broader aesthetic indication? Oh, sure. Thanks, Fiona. Interesting about market sizing because no product has been formally approved in the decolletage. There hasn't been a lot of formal market sizing work by other companies. We're truly going to be first mover in this with an approval if successful. I think the way to kind of think about market sizing, as I mentioned in the earlier comments, there's just under 10 million neurotoxin procedures in cosmetic, a little over 6 million in fillers, and if you look at just a simple age demographic, age between 30 and 75 women in the U.S., just under 90 million women, and you take a similar market penetration of, call it, 10% or so that you see with fillers and toxins, it's very easy. If you assume just similar pricing to existing options, you very quickly get to a multi-billion dollar opportunity. It's very, very exciting. In terms of the market sizing, specificity isn't there, but very clearly this is a market creation opportunity for June. This is really not a market share grab, but a market creation opportunity, and it doesn't take a lot of penetration in that category to get to a huge opportunity and multi-billion dollar range. Can you repeat the second question again? I think it was somewhere on off label. Yeah. Is there any potential to expand to? A broader aesthetic market? The answer is absolutely. I think this is very much a platform technology. If you just look at the neurotoxins, they started in the glabellar lines and ultimately ended up in lateral canthal, forehead, platysma, et cetera. Based on this technology being so versatile, we absolutely anticipate many other opportunities to move into other areas of the body. In addition, beyond just looking at other areas of the body, we have other, as I mentioned, opportunities within this vector platform to other genes that may be specific to other areas as well. We have a lot of tools to work with as we look to customize offerings going forward. September, you have some. Yeah, just to add, the reason that we selected the decolletage initially was that it's a very, very challenging area to treat. It's typically not, even though physicians, aesthetic physicians have the ability to use products in an off-label fashion. They do fillers and toxins, that's very standard, but it's not done in the decolletage because of the thin skin. It's not a dynamic wrinkle, associated wrinkle, and the fillers are not an ideal product for that area. We knew that from a subject enrollment standpoint, there wouldn't be issues recruiting subjects. It turned out to be the perfect, perfect canvas for us. From a moving forward standpoint, as Mark shared, there's great opportunity for this product all over the body. Very helpful. Congrats again. Thanks, Deanna. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Joshua Schimmer from Cantor Fitzgerald. Josh, your line is live. Please go ahead. Okay, great. This is Alexa Deamer on for Joshua Schimmer. Congrats on the great data. What are the potential indications that you guys may explore for KB301? For KB301? As far as future indications, I got it. It's still too early to tell. It's too early to tell, Alexa. We're going to undergo a process by way of evaluating where collagen III alone makes sense. It's too early to comment on that. I think as we make a determination on that, we will certainly let you know. Got it. From what you can tell, what are you thinking in terms of frequency of administration for KB304? Yeah, again, to be determined. Still too early. We will follow these patients that are on active drug in this phase 1 study like we did with KB301. We will continue to do that. In terms of durability, though, I would say that we very much expect this to be in the range of existing treatment options, whether it's filler procedures or neurotoxin procedures. However, we haven't honed in on a specific interval yet. I think it's still too early to tell on that. We very much expect it to be right in the range of existing treatments. Yeah, sorry, we know half-life of collagen III and elastin is pretty long. I mean, just based on mechanism, I would expect durability. Great. Thank you, Leca. Thank you. Thank you. As a reminder, if you wish to join the queue to ask a question at this time, you can press star one on your telephone keypad. Once again, that will be star one on your keypad if you wish to join the queue to ask a question. Your next question today is coming from Sami Corwin from William Blair. Sami, your line is live. Please go ahead. Hey there. Congrats on the progress and thanks for taking my questions. I was hoping you could clarify your proprietary JDWF scale a little bit more. I'm trying to understand if it's capturing something unique that the GAIS isn't, and if the GAIS will still be used as a secondary endpoint or if you're proposing that to FDA. I would also love to get your thoughts on manufacturing and if you think Krystal's in-house manufacturing could support the commercialization of KB304, or if you think you'll need to look elsewhere. Thank you. Thanks, Sami, for the questions. I'll let September handle the first one, and then I'll come back around. On the manufacturing side, how do you think manufacturing? I can take manufacturing. Okay, thanks. Perfect. On the GAIS, the concept is that the investigator and the subject are comparing change relative to baseline. By contrast, on your photonumeric scale, they are grading the area of interest at a specific time point. Can you correlate between the two? If one is positive, likely the other one will be positive. If you look at standard studies out there, we are expecting that our static scale will probably be part of a primary endpoint, and then the GAIS will be part of a secondary exploratory sort of endpoint, which is pretty standard. Does that answer your question? Yeah, perfect. Okay. Suma, you want to handle manufacturing? Yeah, sure. I mean, keep in mind these are platform technologies. I mean, I know Vyjuvek is an approved commercial product. As you know, our group here has optimized and increased production, increased the titer, and also scaled up so we can put multiple bioreactors, scale up. From a manufacturing perspective, with Astra, with a larger facility in place, we can easily meet capacity for supporting large productions. That's something we, as a team, are ready. It's just finding a product that's going to cover more subjects. I think from a manufacturing perspective, we feel pretty confident that we are ready to go with all the process improvements and scale up steps that we have executed. Got it. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks Amy. Thank you. Your next question is coming from Andrea Newkirk from Goldman Sachs. Andrea, your line is live. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Morgan on for Andrea Newkirk. Maybe as a follow up to your comments on the half life of elastin and collagen, can you talk about what. Drove the decision to dose these patients. Every two weeks, and then also recognizing that you're planning on watching these patients, do you expect that durability could allow for twice a year dosing as you had previously estimated with KB301? Thank you so much. That's it, Tamara? Hi. With regard to dosing, we wanted to spread it. With KB301, we dosed every week. With KB304, we moved ahead to an every other week just to have a comparison. Both worked great. With regard to the question of frequency, we are still of the mindset that we will be dosing likely every six months, which is in line with the toxin filler world for the most part. Yeah. I'll just add, remember, we're going to the decolletage, right. We have a larger surface area to cover. I think if you can inject one and then follow up to make sure that we are covering most of the area in the skin, that was the reason to front load the dose. We didn't want to do it all at one time, but spreading it out over a couple of weeks, that was the intent because of the larger surface area. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Morgan. Thank you. This does conclude our question and answer session for today, as well as today's conference call. I'd like to thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at this time and have a wonderful day.