Since the very early days in 2014, we have engaged in discovery partnerships, and as of today, we have executed or started on over 100 therapeutic antibody discovery programs with a variety of different partners, which include many of the industry's largest and most enabled players: companies like Regeneron, GSK, Gilead, Pfizer, and Lilly, and beyond. I will draw your attention to the top right there, where we have just entered another very significant and exciting collaboration with AbbVie, which is one of our partners, and this is the first significant engagement that AbCellera has made in building on our T-cell engager platform, which we spent the last few years developing, so we will be able to share more of that in the coming months and years as that collaboration advances.
Now, through that partnership business, we were both able to direct our R&D and to cut our teeth on many of the most difficult problems in the industry, and we were also able, through that, to build a diversified portfolio of passive positions that are royalty stakes in therapeutic programs that are being developed by our partners. The way that these deals would work is that we would engage in discovery. We get paid some upfront fees, some research fees, and then are eligible to receive both clinical milestones and ultimately royalties, typically in the low to mid-single-digit range, on approved therapies that may come out of that portfolio. As of today, we have 95 programs that have that kind of downstream structure.
And of those, the large majority are still in preclinical development, and 14 programs have entered into early-stage clinical development, including two programs that were done with Eli Lilly for COVID-19 that got emergency use authorization that was subsequently revoked. Because of the early stage of these programs, we believe that there is very little value being ascribed right now from the market to this portfolio. But nevertheless, we do believe this is a financial asset that does have value that will mature over time as these programs advance to and through the clinic. And hopefully, we see some of these in the long run, making it ultimately to patients. And if they do, then we will be eligible to receive payments that will come in essentially as 100% margin payments for work that we did years before.
About 15 months ago, we made a clean decision to shift that business model and to ramp down this partnership business and to focus our resources instead on the creation and advancement of an internal and co-development pipeline of assets. This decision comes at the same time that we are nearing the very last stages of building the platform. And over this quarter and the next quarter, we will be making our final large investments in our manufacturing facility. Once that's done, you will see a significant change in the use of cash on the cash flow statements as we start to move from building capabilities to using them on our own behalf. So as of today, we find ourselves at a new beginning for AbCellera. And we are at what I believe is a highly unique place for a company, perhaps one that is even unprecedented.
We have a company that is mature and that has been around for about 13 years. We have fully built out the workforce. We are highly enabled, I would argue one of the most enabled companies for therapeutic antibody creation. And we have gotten to this place while still being in a very strong cash position. Through the building of AbCellera, of course, we had revenue from the early days on partnership businesses. We've been able to get significant non-dilutive funding from the Canadian government, both for building our manufacturing facilities and also for advancing therapeutic programs. We raised about $550 million in 2020 in our IPO. And through our work on COVID-19 with Eli Lilly, we were able to bring in a windfall of approximately $800 million.
Together with all of that, despite the significant investment, we find ourselves today with about $875 million in available liquidity, which includes $670 million on the balance sheet as of the end of Q3, and another $205 million that is committed but as yet undrawn from the Canadian government to advance therapeutic programs. So in a nutshell, we are a company that has full capabilities, and we have capital. We will be using that capital and turning it into a pipeline of internal and co-developed assets. From here, the most important question for success is, how do we choose programs and how do we make decisions about the allocation of capital? Where do we double down? Where do we partner? And where do we decide to back off of programs as they move forward?
We have built a strategy that is explicitly indication agnostic, the reason being that if we confine ourselves to a certain indication, we believe that it's more difficult to find those golden opportunities where you believe you have an outsized chance of winning in the market and an outsized chance of return on investment. So we have full capabilities to work on antibody therapies, including ADCs and bispecifics. And when we pick programs, we need to answer four questions. First, we need to answer, do we like the science? And that question is really asking, do we believe that if we make a therapeutic antibody with a certain property, that it's likely to work in the clinic and be approved? Second, do we see a big commercial opportunity for that therapeutic?
Third, do we have a case to be made for strong differentiation and a case to win in the market? And lastly, is there a clear development path for that therapeutic? And as a smaller company, we are particularly focused on finding opportunities where, for a limited amount of cost and time, we can build higher conviction in programs and therefore know that we're on the right track to ultimately getting the therapeutic approved. Now, in the perfect world, we would build a portfolio where we score highly on all of these different criteria. The reality is that every program has its strengths and weaknesses. And I will maybe walk you through our first two programs, ABCL 575 and ABCL 635, that will be moving into the clinic later this year. First, ABCL 635. This is our lead program.
It is a program for an as-of-yet undisclosed target and indication, but it is broadly in the area of metabolic and endocrine disorders. This is a program that we are very excited about because it scores highly across all four dimensions. First, from the pathway side, this is a target that has been well validated both in preclinical work and in the clinic with small molecules, and it's one where we believe that if we can show good target engagement, that it's highly likely to be efficacious, and we also believe that it's unlikely, or at least we do not have concerns that engaging the target will cause toxicities or side effects. Secondly, we believe that there's a large and important and unmet commercial opportunity.
In our estimation, there is a large target population and that we can easily make either a bottoms-up or top-down case for a market opportunity of over $2 billion in peak sales, total, I should say, TAM of $2 billion. On the differentiation side, ABCL 635 has the potential to be a first-in-class antibody, so the first antibody against this particular target. We anticipate or have a good case for differentiation in terms of the safety profile. And finally, we believe that a product that is a once-monthly subcutaneous injection will be preferred by patients, and we have market data to support that preference.
Lastly, this is a program with a clear and established development plan and one where there are very good biomarkers so that in the first trials that we'll be running through the end of this year and into early next year, we'll be able to test this molecule in patients. And at the end of that, we'll have a very clear view as to whether or not we are engaging the target and whether it's likely to work as a therapeutic. So this is one that we're very excited about. And for AbCellera, the first half of 2026 will be an important time when we start to read out that program and see if it has a path for further investment to become a drug. Our second program is ABCL 575. This is one that we have disclosed, and it's an OX40 ligand antagonist, a non-depleting OX40 ligand antagonist.
This is a program that is not innovative on the target side. It is following amlitelimab, which is a molecule that's now in phase three by Sanofi in atopic dermatitis and is being evaluated in phase two for other indications. In phase two, they have shown that amlitelimab had efficacy that was comparable to Dupixent, had a clean safety profile, and because of the mechanism of action, has a longer duration effect, albeit a slower time to the onset of that effect. We believe that there is a large commercial opportunity here. Of course, atopic dermatitis is already north of $10 billion with single-digit penetration in biologics in the patient group. We also know that for Dupixent, there is approximately 20% of patients that discontinue. And so even as a second-line therapy, there's an attractive commercial opportunity. Of course, there's also Lebrikizumab from Eli Lilly, which is an IL-13 antagonist.
But because there's almost complete overlap between Lebrie and Dupixent and the mechanism of action, if you went to a second line, having another option like OX40 ligand would be attractive. Thus far, OX40 ligand is arguably the only other important mechanism of action that has been shown to work in atopic dermatitis. Lastly, if you look at the biology of OX40 ligand, there's a good case to be made for it working across many indications. And as I mentioned, it's currently being evaluated for celiac disease, for asthma, HS, alopecia, and others. So we believe, in a nutshell, that the OX40 ligand class has the potential to be huge. What we have is a molecule that is coming in quite far behind amlitelimab, but is neck and neck with other molecules that are now being developed.
The differentiation thesis is that we've engineered this molecule to have excellent biophysical properties, so good formulation, and with YTE mutation as half-life extension that should allow for less frequent dosing than amlitelimab. I'd say that's a modest case for differentiation, but an important one if stacked up against once-monthly dosing that maybe happened for Sanofi. And we do believe that, given what we've seen thus far preclinically, we have a very good chance of being able to have less frequent dosing than what they ultimately get. Lastly, because this is following, it's a clear development path. And we expect to have the CTA filing, which is the Canadian equivalent of an IND, submitted in Q2 of 2025, and a readout at the same time as ABCL 635 with safety and PK in 2026.
So in 2025, we are making the transition from being a preclinical platform and partnership company to a clinical-stage biotech. Our first two programs will enter the clinic in the back half of this year, ABCL 635 and ABCL 575. And behind that, we have a large and robust, and in our view, a very exciting and differentiated portfolio of preclinical assets. We have roughly 20 preclinical programs that are underway at various stages, starting from just getting going to ones that are within striking distance of a development candidate this year. And our intent is that over the coming years, we'll be electing, on average, two development candidates per year so that over the time from now to five years from now, we have the potential to build what is an exciting and highly differentiated portfolio.
The name of the game now is for us to find that molecule that is likely to be a winner and to push it as far as possible. And if we get that, then I think we're well set up to have a really dramatic acceleration of productivity based on the long-term investments in capability and in the internal pipeline. And with that, I will stop and happy to take some questions.
I can get started with the questions. To start, what are some key catalysts to expect over the next 12 months?
Sure. So I think I touched on some of these through the talk. So first of all, actually, we'll be disclosing the identity of ABCL 635 in Q2 of this year. In Q2 of this year, we also anticipate two CTA filings, one for ABCL 575 and 635, and then, of course, the initiation of first-in-human later in the year. Both of those programs, the real catalysts will come with clinical data, which we expect in the first half of 2026, so a little bit more than 12 months off. We recently announced the collaboration on our TCE platform. That is the one area in partnering where we're still very active.
And we see a lot of opportunity and a lot of interest being driven by clinical data that's now coming out from various groups that has compellingly made the case that TCEs have an important place to play in solid tumors. And then additional catalysts, I'd say, are the selection and announcement of new development candidates. And we're hopeful that we have some that will not only be exciting therapeutics that are differentiated in first-in-class, but also that very strongly highlight the technological differentiation at the company, since we do have many programs in the preclinical pipeline that are going after target classes that have thus far been either very difficult or completely intractable.
Thanks, Carl. You mentioned briefly about the development candidates that you're selecting. So with the AbCellera engine largely in place and the big investment there complete, how is the company thinking about which development candidates to take forward?
Yeah, so the question is, with the capability and the capital and the ability really to go anywhere you want in terms of modality and platform, how do we pick? And I'll just maybe re-summarize what I laid out in the presentation. We're looking for those golden opportunities where AbCellera can win and where we believe that there is a much higher chance of success, not just success in the clinic, but commercial success than is average. And we look at those through three lenses: science, differentiation, development, and commercial opportunity. And I would say that within the portfolio, that's always being evaluated and always changing based on internal data and external data. But we feel very bullish that we have a stable of exciting assets that can come out over the next year and beyond.
Switching gears to ABCL 575, where do you see the opportunity for differentiation based on what you've learned about the molecule thus far?
Yeah, so again, ABCL 575 was designed to be at least as efficacious as amlitelimab, which is currently the front runner, but to allow for less frequent dosing. We're confident that we have seen that. We have a molecule that in our assays, if anything, might be more potent, but probably is comparable to amlitelimab. We have a terrific CMC package, good formulations, so we can get to a higher concentration in a sub-Q formulation. And finally, with the YTE half-life extension, we expect, based on preclinical data, that we will have better PK and longer target coverage. But of course, we need to show that in the clinical study. I would say for amlitelimab, pardon me, for 575, the catalysts are really twofold. Internally, in our clinical development, the most important thing is to show PK and target coverage.
Over that time, we also expect to get external catalysts, which include readouts from Sanofi in other indications, as well as work being done by other groups, particularly looking at OX40 ligand as a combination therapy. If any of those read out well, we believe that reads through to this asset and increases the value of the class and hence the value of the asset.
Turning to ABCL 635, how do you think about the potential success of this program in terms of providing external validation of your competitive advantage here?
So ABCL 635, as I mentioned, is going after a well-known target that has been clinically validated. So I think one of the most exciting things there is that we know that we have a molecule that is a potent antagonist to it. And if we show that we can get good target engagement in patients, which we'll be able to tell in the early studies using biomarkers, we have an excellent chance of that becoming a drug. In fact, at that point, perhaps even now, but certainly at that point, I wouldn't bet against it working in later-stage studies, which, of course, need to be done. This is also a target that falls into a bucket that we often refer to as difficult targets, multipass transmembrane protein targets, ion channels, and GPCRs.
It's an example of our technology being able to succeed and develop terrific, developable, highly potent molecules against those target classes. I suspect that will be the first of several that we'll be able to unveil in the coming years.
You've talked about the TCE platform potentially serving as the basis of future strategic partnerships. Is there a specific type of deal structure you're looking for, and which development candidates are under consideration?
Right. So the TCE platform is one that we started about three years ago. Originally, the thesis was that TCEs would become an important modality in oncology. I think increasingly that's being seen by everyone, given the data. But we believe that these were being developed with a relatively limited set of building blocks, in particular with CD3 binders, many molecules being used on the same CD3 binders. So over the first two years of this work, what we've done is build what I believe is the industry's largest and best characterized panel of CD3. We've also refined our bispecific platform that lets us quickly combine those to make bispecifics that test the combination of tumor binder and CD3, and then put in the high-throughput assays that allow you to screen and evaluate those.
Over the past year or so, we have advanced that work with a handful, a small number of internal targets. We've previously disclosed some of those. They include PSMA, B7-H4, and CD19 in autoimmunity, and in the recent months, let's say the last six months, we've been busy moving those into in vivo studies, so what I would say now is that we are on a pretty rapid ramp in getting in learning about the biology and figuring out how to connect that both backward into the in vitro assays and forward in what we're seeing in the clinic, so to your question, as a platform, we see a lot of opportunity because once we and the industry figures out how to make this work, there is a tremendous opportunity, many, many targets that could be used with this modality.
And when that happens, we'll find ourselves with fully built capabilities and better know-how. So we're looking to push various scientific hypotheses through partnerships. And the partnership with AbbVie is a terrific example where we're able to work with a well-established group that has conviction in the space and explore an avenue of use of TCEs that has a lot of potential. We're also doing some of this internally as well, and we're looking for other partners to help to push that forward a bit. In terms of internal assets, I mentioned some of them, that we have one more internal asset that has not yet been disclosed. Each of these has the potential to be a development candidate, but we hold those up to all programs in the portfolio.
So when we make decisions about what to bring forward as a development candidate and into IND enabling studies, we are picking the very best molecule on the framework that I mentioned before and not prioritizing some in one modality or another.
You've recently announced a number of partnerships, including with Regeneron and Lilly. Can you explain the background here and what they say about the AbCellera platform?
Yeah, so we've had some recent partnerships with both Lilly and Regeneron. We've also had, of course, as I mentioned, partnerships with AbbVie and many innovative small biotechs. We've been working in a partnership mode, as I mentioned, for about a decade. I think that interaction has been indispensable to help us understand where the real problems in therapeutic antibody discovery are and what tools we need to solve them. From an external validation perspective, while we're often very limited in what we can say about that work, I do think that it reflects very positively on AbCellera that companies that everyone knows are well-enabled and are clear leaders in the space have decided to engage with us, not just once, but to come back. We're proud of that interaction.
We also believe that those interactions and the relationships that have been built, as well as the reputation, will put us in good standing as we start to develop our portfolio and look for opportunities down the road with our assets.
Got it. And to wrap things up, what are you most excited about heading into 2025?
Yeah, what I'm most excited about is related to my opening comments. I think if you look back, if you look in the industry today, or you look back through the history of the industry, it would be difficult to find a setup as promising as where we are today. So it's been a long road to get here. And we've got about 12 years of partnering, of learning, of building technology, of laying the foundations.
We've come to a point where we are well-positioned with two great assets going to the clinic, the ability to follow those up organically, and enough capital to take enough shots on goal that if we are smart and if we make good decisions and if we get a couple of good bounces on the science, we have a chance of taking this company not just to the next level, but to the level after that. So my excitement is not really squarely focused on 2025. It's focused on the next five to 10 years. The next five years and the first programs, the first, let's say, six to eight programs we bring out, this is, in some ways, the make-or-break moment. If we get a big winner here, we're off and away. If we don't, we're not dead, but it'll be a tougher road.
We're thinking very carefully about those. On the first two assets, I think we've chosen wisely.
Okay, well, thanks for the great presentation.
My pleasure. Thanks, Chris.