Great. Welcome, everybody. Thanks for joining us. My name is Matthew Sykes, and Life Science Tools and Diagnostics Analyst at Goldman Sachs. Today, I have the pleasure of welcoming the Olink senior management team, Jon Heimer, CEO, Carl Raimond, President, and Oskar Hjelm, CFO. Jon, Carl, Oskar, thanks for joining us today. Great, thank you for having us. Having you. Maybe we'll just start out, let you kind of set the stage a little bit, talk about some of the most, more recent results, but also sort of what trends you're seeing and how we should think about the back half of this year. Sure thing. No, I mean, obviously, first off, maybe both proud and excited and happy about, I mean, what we've done since our IPO. This is over two years now. The business plan and the strategy we laid out, that we really have delivered on every sort of aspect of that business plan. Super proud of what we've accomplished and the team that has done that. A great job, and two questions that are the most important factors there, obviously, top line revenue growth. I mean, we're a high growth company, and delivered very solidly on that, 47% growth last year, $140 million in revenue. Obviously, very strong, and but more importantly, sort of what generated those numbers. You in particular, Matt, I mean, you've been very focused and the most important, sort of highest growth part of our business is the high-plex, where we really have, with our technology, yeah, opened up a new field of research that we haven't been able to do before, and looking at proteins in a scale, in a quantity and quality, throughput, et cetera, that no one has been able to do in the past. Very focused on Explore, and we've been very clear as well that we want to drive the business to a product business. The, what we call the externalization. Now, I guess after Q1, we had Explore on the market for a little over two years, and now it's 63 sites that run Explore. Yeah, very strong execution there. Obviously, quite exciting to see sort of the appetite there as well in the use of Explore and the pull-throughs that people are looking at, and we of course, as well. $700,000-$800,000 annually, so quite impressive. Very strong appetite. Yeah, driving that product business, the kit business, we delivered sort of on that last year as well. Q4, 50% of the business was in kits, very strong here in Q1 as well. Yeah, for sure, delivering on that. We shouldn't, we shouldn't forget about the Mid-plex business, which is truly sort of a little bit of an untapped opportunity for us. We're just really starting. We launched the Signature, now 18 months back and have had significant traction with that as well. I think we reported total of, like, 117 boxes in that period of time, you know, it's a very important aspect, I think, for our customers as well, where we're, you know, uniquely can address both that high-plex, mid-plex, and low-plex scenarios. Yeah, I guess that was maybe, you know, a long-winded answer to the sort of past year. If we look ahead, I mean, revenue growth, very important, guided to $192-$200, 40% at that midpoint. What excites us, we've been very clear that we continue to innovate, so expanding on the library, polishing on products, coming out with new products. Yeah, no, we're very excited what we've done since the IPO, recent year, and the prospects for this year. Got it. Thanks for that for overview. Maybe kind of to set sort of the context, you know, you've often mentioned you're in the early innings of penetrating your target markets, I think when you're generating the type of top-line growth you're generating, I think people want to understand sort of what is the TAM that you're going after. Maybe if you can kind of help quantify sort of Mid-plex and high-plex to the extent that that's relevant in terms of the market opportunity, but maybe talk about what you think your penetration is today and what the opportunity set is for the proteomics market. Yeah, the TAMs and also, I mean, what we communicated in our IPO, we talked about a $35 billion TAM, $19 billion for the research and $16 billion for the diagnostic. Obviously, today, the vast majority of our business is in that research market. That's sort of one dimension. The other one is to look at that we're now facilitating proteomics on NGS. I think there are, like, 8,000 sequencers out there that we can target. I just mentioned those 63. Obviously, some of those customers run several sequencers. I don't know if it's, like, 100 out of those 8,000 to give sort of a, you know, a perspective of, like, we're, you know, 1 or a couple of%, you know, penetrated, very, very early stage. I dropped that 117 number on the Signature as well. There, I mean, we're looking at 4,500, 5,000 proteomics labs where we think it's really applicable for, or we have a serious right to win across those labs with our technology offering. I don't know if that helps sort of where we're at in our life cycle and where it is the world. Overarchingly, or taking one or two steps back, I think it's just maybe, you know, taking opportunity here and to. Sometimes when in these discussions, I'm not really sure that people take that step back and think about, like, what we really have enabled. Because, I mean, obviously, proteomics has been and still is. I mean, mass spec is a very, you know, established way of doing, looking at proteins. Us to now really to do what we've done in genomics, to use proteomics in sort of a population scale, in a very, very large quantity of biomarkers, across very large sample sets in that high-throughput setting. I mean, we have simply not been able to do that research ever in the past. The mass spec is a fantastic instrument, as we just talked about, for, you know, how it is like, really, you want to go really, really deep in looking at few samples or few proteins, like more towards maybe, you know, tissue versus serum and plasma, where we see most excitement. Yeah, it's just... I think looking back to the past, you know, 10, 15 years, where we really, you know, when next-generation sequencing came, we've had a tremendous focus on genomics. I truly believe with us sort of enabling that next-generation proteomics, that the coming decade will be truly sort of driven towards proteomics. If you look at just all those, you know, population health studies I mentioned, they've been very much focused on genomics. Now, I mean, all of them are talking to us, obviously. I mean, they want to add protein data points, and we've already showcased how valuable is that, to add that protein layer on top of that genomics. I truly believe in a multi-omics perspective, and the coming, you know, years, decade, for sure, I think will be a very centered focus on proteomics. Yeah, early days for sure. Yeah, and I certainly agree with you, and I think we've been seeing this journey within science from sort of DNA, RNA to proteins. When we get to proteins, you're actually getting to the sort of mechanism of action for disease, and proteins are incredibly complicated. Mm-hmm. I think that you're right. I don't think we've actually the technology wasn't up to speed with what the scientists wanted to do, and I think now we're actually here. I think in that context, how do you think about sort of overall funding for proteomics? I mean, there's been a lot of discussions about, here in the U.S., at least, debt ceiling and NIH budget and things like that. The way I kind of think about it, there's also a mix shift that happens within these budgets, too. I do feel like, because we're on that journey towards proteomics, that maybe even in, let's call it, slightly more constrained budget environments, the mix shift is actually pivoting more towards proteomics. Am I kind of correct in my assumptions? Do you agree with that? Anything that you can kind of share on that? Yeah, no, I think you're fully right. I mean, it's really going to that central dogma of biology, DNA, RNA, protein. Now we can add that protein layer, which we haven't been able to do, you know, in the past, ever. Obviously, there is quite a strong excitement around that opportunity, on top of it, when we see the value it provides. Yeah, I think we're in a bit, you know, lucky from that perspective, that we are in sort of today's central focus of, you know, maybe the most, you know, part of focus on, in life science research. Like, other examples of that, when, you know, when we see graphs being put out there, I think today they're using, you know, language like multi-omics. I think that's the code for like, add protein to that experiment. If you actually talk to the biggest genome centers here today, I don't think they would promote themselves as a genome center, that they would say, "I'm a multi-omics center," where obviously we have, you know, enabled them with that proteomics piece. Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, we haven't seen, you know, headwinds with that, rather, actually tailwinds that, you know, that code word of multi-omics, please add protein to your experiment and increases chances of getting funding and, yeah, which is, yeah, very good for us. Got it. Maybe, one more high-level question in an area that's been of increased interest, of the markets, but also science, with neurology. I think it's obviously, we've seen great progress, whether it's Alzheimer's, ALS, MS. Can you maybe discuss some of the how you're involved with the neurology markets and how you're enabling that research? Not just for academic, but also for biopharma as well, if applicable. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's that's a great example. Actually, we start off, if you take the sort of the overarching umbrella and say, dementia- Mm. I think they talk about that consists of today, like 70 to 80 different diseases. Then if you, like, hone in on one of those and, you know, say Alzheimer's disease, I mean, what I think today, I think we have really painted a picture with two broad brushstrokes. I think it's very apparent that there, that umbrella diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease consists of many more or many more homogeneous subgroups of patients that we need to put another label on. I think that is the next step and what will happen, and actually what our customers are doing, and this is exactly what they're trying to do. They're trying to, through proteomics, to identify which proteins and pathways, so they can stratify subgroups of more homogeneous subset of patients, which either in turn, obviously, that would be super beneficial for patients, but also for biopharma. They know which proteins or pathways to target in those subgroups, this is like the roadmap for drug development, and, yeah, finding new drug targets. Also use that information in a clinical trial setting to obviously stratify patients to those more homogeneous subgroups, and being, you know, effect size go up, so the power of the study goes up. N number of patients, cost, risk, time to market goes down and obviously, you know, much more beneficial to patients. Now I sort of summarized actually one of our more, you know, senior KOL customer's grant application that just got funded. This is exactly what they want to do, and they want to take that into prospective clinical decision making. That's obviously, I mean, what we've thought all along, that is super important with us as a proteomics provider, not only playing in that high-plex, but actually that the customer know that they can discover those pathways and proteins and then work with us as they get more targeted and into prospective clinical decision making. Yeah, I'm very optimistic and hopeful, but I also think we have to be realistic. You know, we're not going to crack this nut in 23. It's going to take some time, but we're definitely heading in the right direction. Got it. Maybe shifting to the sort of the more micro. You mentioned the strong kit revenues that you posted Q4 and Q1, specifically Explore, what you're doing there. We've gotten a lot of questions, I'm sure you have, of sort of the challenging environment when it comes to either emerging biotech or even large pharma, where there seems to be some level of hesitation. Can you give us some color, sort of on the ground, of what you're kind of seeing from that end market specifically? It clearly hasn't impacted your growth, any kind of commentary with what you're seeing on the customer side would be helpful. Yeah, I'll comment on that. I think we, you know, saw that already in Q4 of last year, that, you know, we're starting to see some friction in the buying cycle on the biopharma side. You know, I think we're continuing to see that, you know, to some degree today. I think as the macroeconomic storm clouds were gathering, you know, pharma was already starting to think about budgets and ways that they were, you know, going to control spend, you know, into this year. The way that manifests itself is through more approval processes. You know, an order that a customer might typically say, "Hey, last year, I could just pull the trigger on this and get it done." Now, perhaps they need, you know, their boss's signature or their boss's boss, or it goes to a committee for approval. That's what we're seeing is sort of, you know, the injection of some of these friction points to sort of slow the spend, as I think they wanted to sort of buy time to see how, you know, how those macroeconomics were gonna play out over time. You know, from our point of view, a couple of things there. One, you know, we're not seeing any competitive losses or anything, or not too much in the way of sort of outright, hey, like, this budget was cut. It's manifesting more in sort of, you know, delays or stretching of the, of the purchasing cycle. That ultimately all these things are sort of making their way through. They're getting the signatures, they're getting approved in the committees, but they have to go through those extra steps, and they're coming out the other end. I think, you know, that prioritization of spend is still there around Olink, next generation proteomics. I think that's, you know, the signal I'm picking up there. This is still a very high priority, regardless of, you know, whatever these other, you know, macroeconomic stresses that are being created in the way they're thinking about spending their budgets. Got it. The other part of your business from kits is analysis services. I've always thought this is a fantastic gateway into the Olink product. We have seen that growth, I wouldn't say slow, but just sort of be a little bit below our expectations. I don't think partly by design, I do think that there is a mix shift that you guys are trying to enact-. Mm-hmm. externalizing your business and doing more kits. Given the margin differential, I think it's a pretty powerful combination. I think Oskar would agree with that. Mm-hmm. Maybe talk a little bit about about the analysis services side of the business, kind of what you're seeing there. I realize this is not a zero-sum game. It's not, you know, they can both grow, but at the same time, how are you seeing customers interact with the analysis services relative to sort of the kits business? Are you seeing some of that, maybe people who had started with analysis services start externalizing and sort of going on that journey with you guys? Yeah, yeah. To your original point, that's exactly right. Years ago, when the company was founded, services was, you know, created as a good way to get customers introduced to the technology. And, you know, our feeling then and still now, is once customers run some samples and get a taste of the data, you know, they love it, you know, and they're hooked. That, you know, that went on, earlier in the, in the company's history, where we did a lot of these services, so it became a significant part of the business. The intention was always to move toward product in the future, and a catalyst of that was the sort of creation of the Olink Explore product that would run on next-gen sequencing and some work we were doing to create an instrument. Really in earnest, about, you know, three-plus years ago, really sort of lean into that. There's many benefits. One, you mentioned certainly, you know, from a margin perspective, you know, that's an attractive business for us. Strategically, it's really important, and this has played out as expected and has been very good for our business, which is the, you know, once somebody buys the technology, adopts it in their own lab, it has a lot more sort of stickiness, right, and loyalty to the technology. It also activates those customer networks. If somebody adopts the technology, the collaborators they work with, or if they're a service provider, the network that they have is a multiplicative effect of, you know, the technology, and then that being, you know, others being exposed to it and so on. Strategically, that's, you know, that's been very good for us, as is the fact that you also create more capability in the marketplace. You know, we don't run genomics projects in our, in our services business, but some customers may want to run a multi-omics project. It's great when you have a service provider who can say, "Yes, I can do both these things for you," or, "Hey, I have a CLIA lab," and, you know, a pharma wants to run the, you know, this trial in a CLIA environment. You know, we don't do that at Olink. You sort of create all this new capability in the marketplace, and then you'll also unlock the intellectual capacity of the market, you know, and those customers. You get lots of great feedback on how they're using the technology, what they might improve, what else they would like to see. You know, it's been a great benefit for us, I think, strategically. Last, I think you'd see few companies in the history of the life science tool space who have been successful sequestering their own great technology within their own four walls. You know, when you sort of unleash it and democratize the technology is when you start to see that, sort of that, really, that growth and those wonderful effects that I noted. Yes, so I think those are sort of all the benefits of that business. Yes, we're very purposefully sort of turning that mix a bit. We had stronger than expected, you know, kit sales in Q1, which is great. I think in the second quarter, we noted we'll probably see that shift a little bit back over towards services. You know, we're a good-sized business, but still, you know, some larger orders can sort of move the mix, you know, a little bit here and there. I think we saw a little bit of that in Q1. Although you may, you know, you may see it bounce a little bit, I think over the course of this year, you know, we're still, you know, guiding that we think we'll have about 50% of our business from kit as, you know, the business incrementally changes over time. Yes, some of those service customers have adopted the technology for sure. Now they're running that as kit customers, and we've seen some of that trend, or then starting to work with other collaborators they have who've adopted the technology, or like I mentioned, you know, accessing a CRO or another service provider who has some sort of capability that they want access to. Like I said, CLIA lab, multi-omics, clinical trial management, sort of all these other great capabilities that are out there in our network. One other area that's really surprised us in terms of the growth is the Signature instrument, which is the instrument that you guys sell for the Mid-plex analysis. While it's not a major revenue driver in and of itself, I often think about sort of the increased stickiness that actually creates for you guys for the customer base, because the beauty of the Olink Explore product is you're leveraging equipment that's already in the labs. You're not just selling a box, but with Signature, selling a box. The other side of that is that you create this stickiness with the customer base. Could you maybe talk a little bit about what sort of impact on utilization that you've seen with these customers that have the Signature boxes? Are you seeing a higher level of utilization and revenue because of that sort of stickiness of the customer now that they have one of those boxes in their lab? Yeah, Signature has been a great product for us and a great strategy to have a solution in that sort of mid-plex and low-plex market. I think we sort of hit the mark on a price point that makes it very accessible. You know, desktop instrument, so it's, you know, compact and a technology that's sort of easily adaptable. Yeah, and I think we sort of hit that mark, which has allowed us to democratize that part of the business as well. For sure, I guess, going back to my prior comments, I think once somebody adopts the technology and they've invested in that, you know, they sort of have a vested interest, you know, in making that platform a success in their own hands. Again, in a lot of instances, you know, they're sharing this with others, either at a departmental level or they're a service lab or a CRO or what have you. There is this stickiness, and then there's also this virtuous effect between the two parts of our business, right? Which is the one thing that makes us highly unique in this space, is that ability to do the very high-plex assays down to the very few numbers of assays. We've seen customers adopt Signature and be introduced by that vehicle and then say, "Hey, wow, this is exciting. This is interesting. I want to adopt Explore. You know, we want to look at more." They adopt the other part of the technology. We've also seen that the other way around, where people start in high-plex, and then they get excited about what they're seeing and, you know, getting demand for looking at smaller numbers of proteins. Yeah, it's had a really beneficial effect on our business overall, and we're quite happy with that. Of course, we launched the Flex product line and just began shipping our first kits there in Q1. This, of course, has opened up a whole other segment for us in the sort of old-fashioned, multiplexed immunoassay market, which is very large and existing and sort of ripe for disruption, as it's been, you know, the same technology that's been out there for, you know, 20-25 years. Signature has also been this tremendous vehicle to actually open doors to brand new customers who see themselves just in that space. As they're exposed to... You know, they got the platform, then suddenly they're like: "Oh, yeah, I could actually run these 96 plexes now. I guess I have this capability. Tell me more about this." It sort of opened the door to even looking at more content and other products that we have. It's had a tremendously beneficial effect on the stickiness of the business, and like I said, just even sort of building on the rest of the business as well. Got it. Jon and Carl, the one thing that we've discussed for a while now, probably since the IPO, is that sort of the value proposition that Olink has, where you can go from high-plex to low-plex with one technology. I think in the very early days, I was maybe overexcited for the potential of this, 'cause I don't think it was fully realized. I think what we've seen in the last couple of quarters is actually that starting to happen. 'Cause now you're starting to see whether it's biopharma going from doing more of the discovery work on their own, and then wanting to go down to the low-plex when they've identified the targets that they want to look at closer. Could you maybe talk about any kind of examples that you have from a customer standpoint, of those that have kind of leveraged the technology all the way from high-plex to low-plex? I mean, there must be an advantage to not having to switch technologies in the middle of that process, and you're the only company that can really do that. It'd be great to hear kind of any, you know, you know, kind of customer feedback and examples of that. Yeah, that's a great point. Yeah, you can just start with the UK Biobank project, actually. I mean, they're, I mean, really multi-omics, like, they had the DNA data, and then they overlay the protein and find that causal link from gene protein to disease, and this is a great drug target, right? Yeah, a causal protein involved in that disease process. You're already seeing, you know, drug development effort start on that. That is still early and takes time, right? What we really see from the ones that are starting, seeing large data sets from our platform, and yeah, probably, like, really the true value they get from that and want to then, I should say, more what I call programmatic or strategic sort of implementation and say, "Wow, this is amazing. We need to do this, like, on all programs systematically across the board, in early research discovery, but also in clinical development. There, to your point, like, I also think that when they've done the discovery, they use the technology, they really appreciate it. We're starting to see how that now falls into clinical development, where we haven't been as much used in the past. That's like a snowball, you know, rolling downhill and very, very exciting. We see much more of those conversations today than we did just a year back. That's sort of a trend shift for sure, in a very positive direction. Directly associated with that, if you put yourself in that customer's shoes, like, okay, so why do I do this and what do I want to accomplish? You sort of take that next, so that I really can follow through, and if I wanted to take this into prospective clinical decision-making, make active decisions in trials or post-market, that conversation happens. It's directly to your point, from that discovery all the way and into the future, and through a more partnership-like discussion. Very exciting. Got it. Oskar, I'm not gonna let you off the hook. Oh, okay. Too easily. In terms of the adjusted gross margins for the first quarter, it came in just below 83%. Do you think that was actually, despite the really high gross margins, which you'd be proud of, came in slightly lower just due to increased costs from the inflationary environment, and your reluctance to pass on that cost as you're building your business? Kinda where does that dynamic stand today in terms of the inflation cost trade-off? Kind of give us a view as to how you're thinking about the gross margin development over the course of this year? I think if you're right to point out, we saw a big step down in Q1, but that was, I mean, in line with our expectations when we sort of, you know, did the financial planning at the end of last year. I mean, inflation sort of across the board, really. As we sort of think about the next, sort of the rest of this year and, you know, midterm two years out, I think that sort of mid-80s is sort of, you know, a good place to be in terms of the gross margin. Clearly, over time, as we sort of, you know, build out our, sort of, you know, our proprietary sort of library of antibodies, sort of, you know, we expect, you know, to the margins to sort of step up, but that's sort of, you know, a couple of years out still. For the rest of this year, I think that sort of mid-80s, and then for the corporate margin to be sort of, you know, just about, sort of, just about sort of 70% for the full year. Got it. How do you think about the trade-off between preserving margins but also trying to democratize proteomics? It can still be a fairly expensive process for, certainly for some of the smaller labs. Maybe talk a little bit how you've kind of achieved, or how you're looking to achieve that sort of proper balance between margins but also expanding the market as well. I think that's a great question. The number one sort of priority, I think from our perspective is, you know, sort of growing the business, growing the market, growing the sort of adoption of proteomics. I think what we really can sort of utilize there, I think, on the sort of product development side, we can really work with the product to sort of, you know, make it sort of more efficient, to sort of, you know, reduce the amount of sort of materials we use, so we can sort of maintain gross margins and still sort of, you know, lower the, sort of the price point to customers. I think if you look at sort of the margin profile over the past couple of years, I mean, they've been sort of remarkably sort of stable in a time where we have really sort of, you know, increased the adoption and made sort of, you know, large-scale proteomics sort of much more available. I think we will sort of, you know, continue on sort of that, down that line and sort of, you know, the growth is sort of, you know, an important priority. As you pointed out, sort of, you know, profitability and then sort of margins are, you know, equally important as well. I think for some people who might be new to Olink, I think. Maybe was surprised in that prior to the IPO, you actually were generating EBITDA margins and a significant level of profitability, and then chose to really go after the market, and that required some level of spend. You've guided once again this year to positive EBITDA. I think the balance sheet post the raise you did earlier this year is in, is in very good shape. So maybe discuss how, what are some of the levers below the line, so on the OpEx side of what you can do to achieve that adjusted EBITDA positivity this year? To the extent you can comment on it, sort of what is sort of your vision in terms of getting back to, if I'm not mistaken, I think it was like mid-30 type EBITDA margins prior to the IPO. Maybe talk a little bit about sort of the path to getting back to that. Yeah. Yeah, I think sort of following on the sort of discussion around sort of growth and gross margin, I think with the growth profile we have and the gross margin, I mean, it really sort of, you know, generates sort of a lot of sort of, you know, possibility to sort of reinvest in the business despite sort of, you know, going for profitability. I think with the investment we made over the past couple of years, if we look at sort of like, sort of corporate functions, sort of support functions, I mean, they don't have to sort of, you know, scale sort of the same extent that we've done over the past couple of years. I think our employee base is sort of up almost sort of 8x over the past since 2019, or similar sort of on the cost side. I think what we can now do, we can sort of continue to sort of invest in sort of the commercial footprint, you know, really continue to be sort of leading and invest in innovation, for, you know, a very large part of the sort of cost base, I mean, we've laid sort of the groundwork. I think we can focus more on sort of, you know, efficiencies and sort of, you know, sort of leveraging the investments we've made. you're right, I think the sort of the adjusted EBITDA margin before going public was sort of close to 40%. and sort of not saying, not giving sort of, you know, long-term guidance here, but sort of over time, I mean, certainly sort of ambition level to go back to where we were. Nothing has sort of changed structurally in the business. I think on the, on the flip side, you know, a few years out, we will have a much greater sort of kit share of revenues than we did in 2019. Yeah, I think we can sort of manage that sort of balancing act of growth in innovation and profitability, quite well. Got it. Then, you know, one thing that with the question we always get from investors is seasonality. Maybe talk about sort of the role of seasonality in your business. I know you've tried in the past to sort of augmenting that. Mm-hmm. I also think that COVID masked a lot of, you know, underlying seasonality in businesses, and I think seasonality is coming back in a lot of the other kind of life science tools businesses, so they're probably going to be joining you shortly. Maybe talk about how you manage that seasonality, and what should investors be expecting? Yeah. I think, as we said, sort of on the Q1 call, I think sort of the seasonality this year is sort of similar to what we saw in 2021 and perhaps a bit sort of, you know, even a slightly sort of more predominant Q4. I think we've always been a Q4 heavy business since 2016, so there is nothing sort of new for this year or for, you know, the last couple of years. I think everyone at Olink is very sort of accustomed to sort of that Q4 ramp. We know, sort of, we know what we need to do from an execution standpoint to be able to deliver. When do we need to have samples in Q4? You know, you know, everyone knows sort of, you know, exactly what's sort of required in order to deliver that. I think, you know, it's a big number and, and sort of, you know, from the outside in, it can look sort of daunting, but I think we are, you know, that's sort of in our operational MO to sort of, you know, to deliver on that. You know, that's sort of how, you know, the customer sort of spending patterns sort of are unfolding as well. Over time, of course, you know, we would love to sort of manage that down. I think we should be sort of realistic that it will take time before, you know, we're scaling up the kits business and having sort of, you know, a kit customer base that is sort of, you know, having the same sort of repeat purchases sort of quarter after quarter. That's going to take a couple of years. Got it. Maybe in the few seconds we have left, Jon, what do you think is most misunderstood about Olink, and what do you want investors to kind of understand or appreciate better about the business? Yeah, try to squeeze that in maybe in the beginning. We'll give you a little extra time. Okay. To really understand, like, what we brought, like open up, like try to make that comparison to next-generation sequencing, to next-generation proteomics, which we actually have enabled and opened up. That to study today 3,000 proteins in a couple of microliters of blood in a throughput. I mean, if I just go back to, if someone said that to me in 2016, I would like, "Oh, this guy's crazy." That's where we're at and the opportunity to do that population-based scale and look at, you know, the vast majority of proteins in circulation in blood. I mean, just on the most important part of the central dogma, the closest omic to our phenotype, which really is dynamic between health and disease in real time, and really is going to make the biggest impact on life science. I mean, I think that's pretty remarkable. That's a great place to end it. Okay. Thanks, Jon. Thanks, Carl. Thanks. Thanks, Matt.