Good morning, everyone, again. Welcome to the next session with Zymeworks. As a reminder, I'm Ami Fadia, biotech analyst at Needham, and if you'd like to ask me any questions that you want to ask the company, feel free to send it over to me through the dashboard. We'll have some time at the end for Q&A. With that, it's my pleasure to be hosting Ken Galbraith, CEO of the company, and joining him today is Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer of the company. I'll turn it over to you, Ken, for the presentation. That's great, and thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on Zymeworks. As you'll see, I will be making forward-looking statements during the course of my presentation, and would like to refer everyone to our SEC filings related to that. So we're really excited about the next period of time in front of Zymeworks. There's three important things I'd like to leave you with at the end of our presentation, so I'll start with that. One is we're on the cusp of a hopeful approval and commercialization of zanidatamab, our HER2 bispecific antibody, and the HER2-targeted space, we're working very closely with Jazz and BeiGene to look for the opportunity to commercialize that. We currently have a regulatory review underway in the U.S. for our second-line biliary tract cancer indication related to our Phase II beta readout at the end of 2022, as well as an ongoing first-line GEA study, which is expected to readout later this year. We're really excited about that. And obviously, Jazz has indicated additional indications beyond BTC and GEA, which they did recently. Beyond that, we're working very hard on 5 new INDs of both antibody-drug conjugates and trispecific antibodies, which we hope to move into first-in-human studies over the next 24 months. So we're excited about getting the first 2, ZB191 and ZW171, into human studies this year, and we're on track to do that. Beyond that, we still believe there is a, a really differentiated platform at Zymeworks that would allow us to have continued long-term R&D productivity of innovative, novel, and diverse portfolio of ADCs and tri-TCEs, and the ability to expand our therapeutic focus and research scope beyond that at the rate of two new INDs annually for 2027 and beyond. All three of those elements, we think, are very important for our goal to really design innovative medicines that can truly help patients in areas of need, as well as build a, a very successful biotech company, with those medicines in mind. This slide here indicates where the focus of our activity are. We've chosen to focus the activity of our ADCs and T-cell engagers on the, the most difficult-to-treat cancers, shown here as indicated by areas where innovation has not yet come to these patients. So we still see a 5-year overall survival statistics in these particular indications, being something where we need to find a way to bring innovation to this patient population. It allows us to be very therapeutically focused in gynecological cancer, lung cancer, and gastric esophageal cancer, with some other areas we can expand beyond that. We've built a capital plan underneath that R&D strategy, which is heavily reliant upon our current cash position, which is very healthy, and the ability for Zanidatamab to continue to provide additional approval, commercial milestones, and eventually royalties from sales from Jazz and BeiGene, as well as the ability to potentially strike new partnerships and collaborations which provide further upfront payments and R&D funding and help us accelerate some of our portfolio as it continues to advance into clinical studies. So we feel very comfortable with our cash runway supporting the chosen R&D strategy that we have inside the company. The first part of that R&D strategy is around building what we think are our next-generation ADCs. And what we did is we took, you know, 40 years of ADC learnings, which we've talked a lot about over the past 12 months, to try and design, you know, the next generation of ADCs that will optimally work in combination with other standard of care in an earlier patient population, hopefully the broadest patient population, that we can find a way to treat with our ADCs. And we think that's the future of where antibody-drug conjugates as a product modality need to go. And that bases a few elements of this that are important for us. Right now, we're working on validated targets. We have a strong understanding of the biology around these targets as we introduce some next-generation features into our ADC platform. We've got a proprietary TOPO-1 payload, 519, which we've put onto three different ADCs which will move into the clinic. I think it's important to design a payload that's unique and well-suited for the ADC mechanism rather than repurposing an existing drug. We have a very specific linker conjugation strategy that we've presented, including recently at AACR, this past week. And again, we also focus on the properties of the antibody, which we think are ideal for an ADC mechanism in terms of binding, internalization, and tumor penetration. And I'll present some of those findings of how we're doing that. But we, we firmly believe that using this 40 years of ADCs to understand how they work and how they work best has been built into the design of the three ADCs we expect to take into clinical studies in 2024 and 2025. A key component of that is our own novel camptothecin payload, which we designed with a significant medicinal chemistry effort. And we think the choice of a novel payload is extremely important at getting an optimum ADC mechanism, rather than repurposing an existing drug into an ADC payload and trying to deal with the characteristics that you don't want to have in that particular payload. So we think 519 is a very unique opportunity for us, differentiates us from other ADC companies. And what we'd like to say is that, you know, we've chosen this modest potency payload, which I'll explain as we talk more about the three specific ADCs. We started life as an ADC company as a more traditional auristatin payload company, built two auristatin payload ADCs, one of which is currently in clinical studies with Exelixis, with a targeted tissue factor, and one is currently internally with Zymeworks, which is putting our zanidatamab antibody on an auristatin payload on that antibody in the HER2 space. But primarily, our future efforts are around utilizing this proprietary TOPO-1 payload on three different ADCs, ZW191, ZW220, and ZW251, which are on track to go into clinical studies during 2024 and 2025, and I'll talk about those. So first IND in the clinic this year is our folate receptor alpha targeting ADC, primarily focused on both lung and ovarian, but a broader potential applicability beyond that with this target. It's a DAR of 8, which I'll talk a little bit more about in a minute about our selection there. It has a number of novel features, including what we think is probably the best-in-class antibody for this particular target. So we've published a substantial amount of preclinical data around ZW191, including recently in San Diego this week, and we're looking forward to looking at what we understand preclinically as characterizing activity and tolerability profile to move this into phase I clinical studies. And eventually, with our strategy of moving into combination with standard of care in the earliest stage of patient population possible in all of the areas of folate receptor that we believe we can have a benefit with 191. The antibody itself is extremely important, we think, in looking at this particular biomarker. And we've designed an antibody that we, we hope, and based on our preclinical data, suggests that we're able to have activity against a variety of expression levels, of folate receptor alpha in a variety of tumor types. And so we're looking clearly at the breadth of potential patient population we could treat with this particular ADC. The antibody is extremely important, the way we think about, achieving a higher protein dose of an ADC as a way to be advantageous for, target engagement, penetration, drug exposure, and therefore, hopefully, enhanced activity. At the same time, we've chosen a particular payload potency, which hopefully mediates some of the tolerability, for patients versus other ADCs, in this space, which allow us to not only, achieve the higher protein dose we'd like to see to get the optimized activity, but allow us to then combine with other product modalities and standard of care to hopefully, in combination, achieve a beneficial result in an earliest stage patient population that we can. This slide here just indicates on the chart on the right some of the differentiation in both the payload potency and drug linker stability of a variety of companies, who are also trying to, pursue development of agents against this particular target. We're extremely excited about the antibody we have, the payload we've chosen, the linker stability, the bystander activity we see in preclinically, and very excited about moving this into first-in-human studies very soon this year. Behind that, we've looked at another target, NaPi2b, also very focused around ovarian cancers and non-small cell lung cancer. In this case, we've chosen a DAR 4, which we think gives us a little bit different tolerability profile to then again look at combining with standard of care in a tolerable way that can again access the earliest patient population possible here. This product, ZW220, is on target for an IND filing in 2025. Again, it's a different biomarker targeting against some similar populations as folate receptor alpha. It has a couple of differences. I'd like to highlight here; this is data which we've published before on the preclinical work we're doing on ZW220. It's on track for clinical studies in 2025. Some of the features that differentiate this from some of the other NaPi2b programs that have either been developed in the clinic or are in preclinical development, again, strong internalizing antibody because we think it's an important feature for ADCs to have to get to the protein dose we think that's necessary to get activity. At the same time, this moderately potent payload and our stability strategy, it preclinically indicates an ability to be very tolerable in patients and achieve that protein dose that we're looking for, also a very strong bystander activity. The DAR 4 versus DAR 8 version of this ADC, I think, balances the activity we're looking for with the potential for on-target toxicities and the ability, again, to use this in combination with other modalities in standard of care. And finally, in this case with 220 as opposed to ZW191, we've silenced the FC because we think that will minimize some toxicities driven by cellular uptake. And so there's a little bit of differential here between ZW220 and ZW191, which we think adds some diversity into our ADC activities. Third, and even more innovative, is ZW251, which is a GPC3 targeting ADC, focused specifically on HCC. In this case, also chosen as a DAR 4 so we can look at combination strategies with the current standard of care for this patient population and hopefully achieve activity levels and clinical benefit that's beyond what we can see right now with the current standard of care. This is also targeted to go into IND in 2025. We have previously published some preclinical data on ZW251. Again, same emphasis on our ADCs of looking to optimize protein dose to drive activity with a good linker strategy and a payload which has a strong bystander killing effect, but at the same time, moderate tolerability which allows it to be a combination agent. In this case, as with all our ADCs, we develop a DAR 4 and a DAR 8 version to understand what the activity tolerability relationship would be. In this case, we've chosen to go with DAR 4 moving forward into the clinic. Again, just in terms of the standard of care and what we're looking to achieve with an ADC, would be looking for the current standard of care shown here on the left and the ability within a tolerable manner to combine with the different standard of care for this patient population, which is still today, A plus B. And what we hope to do is by getting into an earlier patient population, be able to drive real benefit, which in this case would be, survival benefit, in this patient population beyond what we've been able to achieve with the current mechanisms that are available on the left. So really excited about the way we've designed ZW251 to fit into the clinical hypothesis we have around combination strategies and the ability to really benefit patients with an ADC in a way that's not been able to be achieved before, in HCC. So that's our first part of our portfolio on our next-generation ADCs with our proprietary payload 519. Beyond that, with our experience with zanidatamab, which is now at a regulatory stage, you know, we think that we can use our protein engineering skills to even go beyond the next generation of T-cell engagers. In this case, we think that's going to be a trispecific approach to T-cell engagers. So, we've started with zanidatamab, which we worked on for a number of years, designed internally. That same scientific team is now looking at our next approach in multispecific antibody therapeutics with the introduction of ZW171 into the clinic this year, which is our 2+1 T-cell engager format against mesothelin, which again is focused primarily on gynecological and lung cancers, but again, a range of other mesothelin-expressing tumors behind that. Again, this is ready to go into human studies this year. Behind that, we also have another approach, which we talked about at AACR yesterday, around how we think we can use our trispecific structures around TCEs to build either a co-stimulatory activity, which we'll do with CD28, or also build in a checkpoint inhibition, which we can do with a PD-L1 into that bispecific structure. Talk a little bit about that. Beyond that, we've done a number of bispecific engineering projects for partners over the years, including this one from J&J, which has now advanced to be a very important product within their R&D portfolio. So zanidatamab, just a few minutes on Zani. So again, this is really the one and only bispecific antibody approach in the HER2-targeted space against HER2-expressing cancers. A very unique mechanism designed by our scientific team here at Zymeworks, which works in HER2 in a very different way, which then shows up in having a clinical benefit that's very differentiated in particular tumor types as we move forward. So in this case, we have published pivotal data already in biliary tract cancer in 2022, which is the subject of our FDA filing with Jazz, which is now in front of FDA. Beyond that, we have a significant phase III study, as I mentioned, which we'll read out this year in looking at combination activity either with chemo and potentially also with a PD-1 inhibitor in first-line GEA patients. Our phase II data was extremely interesting and compelling to pursue a phase III indication. And this will read out this year. And we're really excited to look at those results. So we think there's a number of milestones for zanidatamab, which could be occurring this year, could see our first approval, in biliary tract cancer in the U.S., and then, get top-line data from our, phase III study, the RISE and GA01 study. And all of that work's being collaborated by or conducted by Jazz and BeiGene, our commercialization partners. So really excited about Zani, as Jazz has gotten before, they see a $2 billion-plus peak sales potential for zanidatamab. We don't disagree with that. We think biliary tract cancer is a very interesting, first market entry, for Jazz in BeiGene. Beyond that, there's a much larger patient population in first-line GEA, which would be the subject of a supplemental PLA based on a positive, readout this year in our HERIZON-GEA-01 study. Beyond that, Jazz has already gotten to a significant clinical development, investment in metastatic breast cancer, as well as a number of other tumor types beyond BTC, GEA, and metastatic breast cancer, that they think should be pursued with zanidatamab based on our earlier clinical data. So we think there's a, a broad applicability for zanidatamab to be, the bispecific antibody and a, a different product modality for the HER2 space than has been available previously. And we think there's a lot of breadth for zanidatamab to grow, and help patients, well beyond BTC and GEA. Beyond that, I said we turned our attention to, to looking to make better bispecific, antibodies, which we think make them a little bit different. In this case, we're moving forward first with an IND filing and first-in-human studies this year with our mesothelin CD3, which is a 2+1 format and a low-avidity CD3. Again, this is really important in ovarian cancer and non-small cell lung cancer, but also a breadth of indications beyond that that we could see potentially ZW171 being applied to. Mesothelin is a very well-understood target. I think we understand the biology extremely well. There's been difficulty validating this target with other product modalities, including in the antibody-drug conjugate space. From our perspective, we think that a T-cell engager against this target in these particular indications might be very attractive. And we've used a 2+1 format to really boost activity, and a low-affinity CD3 to really hopefully do that in a more tolerable way than we've seen with other product modalities. So really excited about the preclinical data we have for ZW171 to really explore our protein engineering skills and our multispecific antibody therapeutic portfolio. Again, engineered with a 2 + 1 format, a novel CD3 paratope that's not been used before in the clinic. And we think our preclinical data indicates that we have some differentiation from other approaches which have been tried, against this target. And we're really excited to get this clinical study underway. Beyond that, we have a whole R&D program around looking at the ability for tri-specific antibody structures to be able to provide better outcomes in solid tumors than we've seen with traditional bispecific antibodies. In this case, our first focus is on looking at the co-stimulatory factor of CD28 being added to CD3 in a way that we think can be tolerable and balanced and find a way to just reinvigorate these T-cell responses, that, you know, we see wane in more traditional bispecific antibodies. So really excited about this. We presented two posters, AACR yesterday. One is around looking at Claudin-18.2 as a TAA and one is around DLL3 as a TAA. And I think those posters indicate preclinically, we see a very different mechanism, by combining CD3 and CD28 in a balanced way, within our structures than you might have seen with other formats that are bispecific just around CD28 or combinations of CD3 and CD28 bispecifics. So we think it's a very unique, differentiated way. We think we have found a way through the way that we think about geometry of these tri-specific antibodies to find better activity at better tolerability. So we're very excited about moving forward with a co-stim tri-TCE as the fifth element of our 5x5 program. We haven't named the target yet that we'll go forward with in the clinic, but we expect to do that later this year. So beyond the 5x5 program I've outlined, we, we think it's a very productive R&D organization here. We think we have the ability in our 5x5 program to have five INDs and five first-in-human studies initiated over the next 24 months, which is a tremendous productivity for a smaller biotech like Zymeworks. Beyond that, we think there's the capacity and substrate within our R&D organization to provide 2 IND-ready molecules per year from 2027 onward with even more novelty, more diversity, more innovation in even a little bit broader focus than in the 5x5 Program we have. We're working on these now to start to fill in what that portfolio will look like. It will have new focus areas, new therapeutic categories beyond lung cancer, gynecological cancer, and GI cancer, as well as an interesting opportunity for us to go beyond oncology into autoimmune and inflammatory disease. This is why we're so excited about 2024 and 2025 for us. Again, we think we'll see a number of significant milestones and expected events both for zanidatamab for the 5x5 Program and moving forward our advanced portfolio even behind that. We have a number of opportunities, both in 2024 and 2025, to publicly present in peer-reviewed formats the work on all three of those elements of our business. So with that in mind, just to summarize quickly, again, I think we have a good capital plan and a good financial foundation to execute the R&D strategy I've explained to you. The cash runway goes out to the second half of 2027. Obviously, the ability to continue to finance this type of business beyond that with zanidatamab performing well with additional, new partnerships that will be available to us in the portfolio as we advance these candidates further from preclinical into clinical stage assets. We have a very productive R&D organization behind the 5x5, which we think provides a longer-term opportunity to build a successful company. And beyond that, there's a lot of potential value-generating opportunities in 2024 and 2025, including moving 5 INDs, moving forward with 5 INDs into first-in-human studies in the next 24 months, which we think just changes the nature of the company that we are. So really excited to execute in an effective way in 2024 and 2025 with what's in front of the company and hoping, as we do that, that it can exceed our own expectations and guidance that we've laid out to you in this presentation. We're working very hard every day to do that. So with that, I'd like to stop there with that summary and just see if there's any questions that we can answer for you during the course of the call. Sure. Great. Thanks, Ken, and Paul for this great presentation. Just a quick reminder to our listeners, you can use the dashboard to send over questions to me. I wanted to maybe just step back and kind of understand, fundamentally, what makes kind of your approach different from what the other companies are doing. You know, you kind of talked about a different payload that you're using, but then you also talked about thinking about a linker and an antibody. How are you, you know, sort of in the discovery process, how are you looking at how you can sort of change each of these elements to best suit perhaps a certain disease model, where it would work best? Yeah. I, I think the first place we try to differentiate is just how we see these ADCs and T-cell engagers being used. And I think they're, they're moving from where they were thought of as kind of monotherapy and their own separate product modalities to looking at how you can advance them, to be used as one product modality in combination with others, in a standard of care. So I know obviously in moving that way, you do give up some maybe pricing power, that you might see with a monotherapy agent. But we firmly believe if you can move to an earlier patient population, which might be even broader, and in combination, you know, deliver, you know, more responses, more durable responses, and maybe a better survival benefit than currently exists with the standard of care, that commercial opportunity can be even better in combination than thinking about these as monotherapy. So I think that requires you then, as you design both these ADCs and T-cell engagers, to understand how you can achieve efficacy as single-agent activity, but with better tolerability. And if you can do that with better tolerability, you give yourself the opportunity then to combine with other standards of care. And obviously, there's in the standard of care and the areas we're working in, there's obviously checkpoint inhibitors whether it's PD-1 or dual checkpoint inhibitors. There's obviously in some of our areas like HCC using a VEGF like BEV, and a range of other, standard of care that are currently being used by physicians in that earliest patient population. So if we can find a way to combine with standard of care to really even provide, a much better, you know, more clinically meaningful benefit to that patient population, we think that's a very commercially attractive opportunity. And, and we think that's, that's where the future of ADCs and T-cell engagers are, are going. So that's in every design element that I just explained to you on our current 5x5 portfolio. It's achieving activity that's optimal, but at the same time, not at the expense of higher tolerability so that we can then look at combination strategies. So instead of thinking about something as monotherapy, which you take forward into registration and then look for combinations, we actually have a different thought process around that. So we'll take these agents likely forward in combination for our first registration approach and then look at where, as monotherapy, there might be other populations that might be better suited for monotherapy. So I think that differentiation of clinical strategy and regulatory strategy and commercial strategy drives a lot of the design features that you see evident in the ADCs and tri-specific antibodies that I described to you. Beyond that, we have, you know, in the ADC format, we think the antibody is very important because we're protein engineers at heart. That's where the company started. So we think there are optimal antibody features on an ADC that are important. So we design and optimize the antibody in ADCs. We don't take an off-the-shelf approach on the antibody. On the payload, it's the same thing. We think there's optimal characteristics of the payload you're delivering for an ADC, that you can't find by repurposing an existing drug. So we think those two things are extremely important on an ADC context. So I think the way we think about that and how those two elements work together with the right linker and conjugation strategy as a complete unit, I think is a little bit more holistic approach than you might see from other ADC companies who will bring in a payload from someone else or a linker strategy from someone else or an antibody from somewhere else. We think about all those elements as being fit for purpose and designed by quality inside the company. The other thing that makes us different is that, you know, we're both an ADC company and we're both also a protein engineering company with designing, you know, the next generation of antibodies. So we can take an approach of looking at an indication of interest, a target of interest like we did with mesothelin, and then we can pick the appropriate product format that we think suits that target and that patient population and the future combination we'd like to see. So in mesothelin, we don't think an ADC approach is really the best approach for mesothelin as a target, although folks have tried for some time period. In that case, we think a T-cell engager approach and then our variation of a 2+1 format with a new CD3 paratope is just an interesting differentiation beyond that. So we like the diversity of having both antibody-drug conjugates and next-generation trispecific antibodies in the same portfolio. We think it adds novelty, diversity, higher probability of success of translating from preclinical into clinical stage. So there's a couple of elements there that I think make us different in just our approach, around how we see clinical, regulatory, and commercial pathways with these agents and our desire to be both great engineers of ADCs and great engineers of trispecific antibodies in the same ticker symbol or in the same portfolio. Yeah. Sure. When you think about, sort of, the combinability of a drug, right, when you're developing it, how do you think about the trade-off in terms of efficacy as a standalone monotherapy treatment versus, you know, the efficacy that you do get, you know, from a combination? And how do you kind of manage that trade-off, you know, for a given sort of therapeutic area or a given indication? Yeah. I think if you look at, you know, the history of antibody-drug conjugates, for example, I think we've seen some tremendous developments in ADCs over the past 10 years. Most of those have been monotherapy approaches because to drive the type of activity to benefit patients, there's been, you know, struggles with maintaining tolerability for patients. And what that means is you find that there's, you know, a higher discontinuation rate. Patients cannot stay on therapy long enough even though they're getting a benefit from activity because the tolerability profile just prevents that. So I think if you really want to try and find a way to have patients get access to a therapy that gets them a response but have durability response because they can stay on that therapy longer, you need to focus on generating activity with lower tolerability. We also think there's some belief that having a standard of care of combination regimens will find better responses, like a higher level response, more durable responses, and the lower potential for patients dropping out due to toxicity when they taper down therapy and continue the maintenance of their response. So we've focused on trying to find that window between generating good activity as a single agent with acceptable, better accepted tolerability, which then allows it to combine with other standard of care. We obviously have to prove that preclinical thesis that we see on our existing data into clinical studies, and that'll be the focus of what we do next. So beyond going through dose escalation, dose expansion, proof of activity, move very quickly into combination cohorts for both ADCs and T-cell engagers to see if we really can generate activity in combination with standard of care, which is exciting, and with a combined tolerability of our own agent and other agents in standard of care to really achieve that objective of getting earlier patients, patient population, higher response rates, but durable responses, which patients can stay on longer. And we think that's great for patients, to get that true benefit and try and get a better survival benefit in some of these indications where we don't have it. But from a commercial perspective, we still think that's a really interesting way to potentially maximize the commercial potential of our ADCs and T-cell engagers, even in a combination regimen versus monotherapy. Okay. Maybe my next question is, and perhaps that might be the last one that I have here, is, you know, ZW191 and ZW171, they're both expected to go into the clinic this year. What's the market opportunity for the MSLN and the FRα expressing tumors in the market? And why did you prioritize those two to go into the clinic first? And you know, you kind of talked about, you know, a total of five that you are kind of working on. So why these first? Yeah. I think if you, if you look at both ZW171 and ZW191, you know, we, we, we think these are very validated targets. So the biological understanding of the target's very well understood, both by folks who've been positive and, and folks who've had negative outcomes in clinical studies. So we think with some novel elements of our platform, both on ADCs and the multi-specific antibodies, this just gives us a reduced risk, and a higher probability of success, by looking at, at biology that's understood. As well, the, the potential indication of interest for both of these biomarkers is very broad. And, and I think if we learn anything from our experience with zanidatamab, you know, you, you don't need to be first in a therapeutic category like HER2. You don't have to be the only person in that space. You can find a patient population that you can benefit even with multiple participants in these biomarkers and find a way to find patient benefit with your own differentiated mechanism and find a way to still make that commercially attractive. So with zanidatamab, you know, in biliary tract cancer and GEA, our mechanism is so unique and differentiated that for those particular tumor types in the HER2 space, that might be the best opportunity is looking at zanidatamab in those patient populations, again, in combination with PD-1 and chemotherapy regimens eventually. And, you know, we do believe the guidance Jazz has given that they believe this is a $2 billion plus opportunity for Jazz even beyond BeiGene's territory. So we think, you know, there's elements of being able to you don't have to be first. We have to have a high-quality asset that's different and potentially through its mechanism provides a differential clinical benefit in some of those patient populations in folate receptor alpha and mesothelin. You know, clinical data will tell us, and clinical data from other competitors in these both against both these targets will tell us. But we think there's lots of patient room for different agents to help different patient populations, within those two, target areas that we're looking for. And we'll explore, both ZW171 and ZW191 broadly at first, and then look for opportunities where we might have the best clinical benefit of all the different product modalities and all the choices within those product modalities against those two patient populations. So I think understanding the biology and having validated targets is important to increase our probability of success. They're both broad enough potential commercial opportunities that we can find a way to be a significant participant within both of those and go where our clinical data shows us to do that. I think we learned that from Zanidatamab, that you don't have to be the only participant in a space to find a way to benefit patients and find a commercially attractive molecule moving towards the clinic. We'll take that learning from Zanidatamab forward into our next 5x5 molecules, starting with those two in the clinic this year. Okay. Those are all the questions I have. So I'd like to close the session here. Thank you so much, Ken and Paul, for joining us today. Thanks to all our listeners as well. Yeah. Really appreciate the opportunity. And again, there's contact information here for our folks if you have any follow-up questions or want additional information on the company.