Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 2025 JPMorgan Healthcare Conference. My name is Varun, and it is my absolute pleasure to introduce on stage AbCellera Biologics, joined by the CEO, Carl Hansen, who will talk about the company and their growth for the year. So please give it a huge round of applause for Carl Hansen.
All right. Thank you very much, and thank you to the organizers of JPMorgan for the opportunity to speak. So today, my prepared remarks I'll try to keep pretty brief. For those that don't know us well, I'll give a little bit of history in the company. I'll then give you an update on our portfolio, and in particular, our lead asset, ABCL635. And then maybe lay out for you why we're excited about the future of the company, why we think the next six months to 18 months is very interesting in terms of the development of our portfolio and our transition from what has been historically a technology and platform-based story to a clinical company with multiple assets and some pretty interesting readouts that are coming soon. So for those that don't know us, AbCellera is a biotechnology company.
The center of mass is located in Vancouver, Canada, where we have roughly 500 employees. We also have facilities in Sydney, Australia, with about 50 employees, and a clinical development group in Montreal, Canada. The company was founded in 2012 from my academic lab at the University of British Columbia, where I was a professor. And so we have now been at this we're coming into our 14th year. Through the first decade, AbCellera was really focused on building an engine or a platform focused on integrating technologies for antibody discovery and on being able to put everything together from concept right through to clinical development.
Along the way, we have managed to put in place a platform that we now believe is best in the world and have put in place infrastructure and a fully built team, which I mentioned, but that includes headquarters in Vancouver, as well as a newly completed GMP manufacturing facility. AbCellera went public in 2020, right around the time of COVID-19. We did substantial financing at that point, just over $600 million. And since then, we have been successful in bringing into the company roughly $1.5 billion additional in non-dilutive funding. The biggest part of that coming from our success on COVID-19 and working with Eli Lilly, where we brought the first COVID antibody to the U.S. for emergency use authorization, and then a second one after that. That partnership with Eli Lilly ended up bringing about $1 billion in royalty revenue.
In addition to that, we've been successful in securing contributions and support from the Government of Canada and from the Government of British Columbia to the tune of roughly $400 million. Because of that, we have managed to do this significant build. As I mentioned, about 600 people, about 300,000 sq ft of facilities, state-of-the-art capabilities, and significant infrastructure. We still find ourselves today in a terrific liquidity position with roughly $680 million in total liquidity as of the end of Q3. Our competitive advantage is really having invested for over a decade in the technologies to solve very challenging antibody discovery and development problems. That platform was built through our first business model, which was really focused on striking discovery partnerships with biopharma companies, both big companies and small companies.
And over the course of that 10 years, starting in 2014, we have worked on over 100 therapeutic antibody programs of various types that include downstream positions, typically in the form of milestones and low to mid single-digit royalties. And through that work, I've also worked with about 40 companies, and many of the logos are on the screen here. To date, about 16 of those molecules have moved into the clinic. And we do believe that that portfolio that's been assembled by doing discovery work has value that will continue to mature and be recognized as those molecules move forward into the clinic. I'm often asked about the recent shift that we did in our business model, moving from the partnership business to internal development.
One of the things that I always point out is that had we not spent the 10 years building those relationships and really putting our technology through the paces, we would not have been in a position that we are in now to start moving our business towards making first-in-class and highly differentiated molecules based on a technology that has been hardened by working with some of the best people in the industry on some of the most challenging problems. As I mentioned, AbCellera's competitive advantage really lies in that 10 years of work integrating technologies, both the single-cell discovery technology, traditional state-of-the-art sequencing, biology, high-throughput workflows, computation, and other methods to be able to solve the really challenging antibody discovery problems. In particular, we believe that we have special expertise in antibody discovery against multi-pass transmembrane proteins, in particular, GPCRs and ion channels.
That represents about half of the discovery programs that we currently have in our pipeline. And we are also focused on developing novel modalities. We've done considerable work in the space of T-cell engagers and, more recently, starting to build out capabilities and platforms in ADCs. Because we have a broad technology platform and we have decided to change our strategy to building an internal pipeline, we have taken an approach that is indication agnostic. What we're really looking for are high unmet medical need, strong scientific rationale, good differentiation, and a clear development path. And we want to find those wherever we think that our technology can bring us an advantage and where we think that we have a real case to win.
So it was in September of 2023 when we made the definitive decision to start to ramp down the partnership business. And we still have some of those activities, but that's growing smaller all the time, and to turn these capabilities to work on our own behalf to start to build a pipeline. Last year, when I came up and presented, I think I had a similar pipeline slide, and we had our first two molecules, ABCL635 and ABCL575, that were getting ready to go into clinical development. So you can see, based on this chart, that we've had significant and impressive progress in the pipeline since that time. Just pointing out a few changes here.
One that is new is we have added an additional program, ABCL386, which is a new development candidate in the space of oncology and one that we'll talk more about as it moves towards IND filing and clinical development. Earlier last year or early last year, we announced another additional development candidate, ABCL688. ABCL688 has been disclosed as a GPCR or ion channel targeting antibody in the space of autoimmune conditions, and one that we'll talk about more as it moves into clinical development, and our two clinical assets, ABCL575 is a half-life extended OX40 ligand best-in-class molecule that is in phase I, and we expect to read out near the end of this year.
Just earlier this week, we announced that ABCL635, which was not even in clinical development a year ago, has now progressed through phase I in Phase I/II study and is now in phase II and is setting us up for what will be quite an exciting readout in Q3 of this year. I'll spend most of the rest of the talk here telling you a little bit about ABCL635 and why we are so excited about this program and think that this could really be a step change for AbCellera as a company as we get this data readout in Q3 and potentially get it ready for moving into late-stage studies. ABCL635 is an antibody treatment that is designed as a first-in-class antibody for the non-hormonal treatment of vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause.
It targets a GPCR protein called neurokinin-3 or NK3R, and it is a program that is designed as a second line after hormone therapy or for women that are contraindicated for hormone therapy that allows for reduction of what are the most severe symptoms of menopause or the most troublesome, which are hot flashes. I mentioned how we think about programs. This is a program that we love, and we love it because it scores really high in the four categories that are our framework for picking targets. I'll go into more of this a little bit later in the talk, but first of all, from a science perspective, the NK3R pathway is very well understood, and it has been clinically validated now with two small molecules, fezolinetant and elinzanetant, and it is also a pathway that allows for early studies of target engagement based on biomarkers.
We believe this is a very significant commercial opportunity. Just before this talk, I was at the session on women's health and a panel session on menopause, and it's clear that this is a very large and traditionally under-recognized opportunity. The stat was put out that 6,000 women in the U.S. move into menopause every single day and that there are roughly 60 million women of menopausal age in the U.S. We believe that if you look just at the women that are currently experiencing moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause, that it's at least conservatively 6 million patients, of which a significant fraction of those will be contraindicated for hormonal therapies.
From a differentiation perspective, we believe, as I'll tell you later, that we have an opportunity to have a product that is more convenient, that has a better safety profile, and also that has potential to be more efficacious in reducing both the severity and the frequency of hot flashes. And we are moving this forward very rapidly, now only six months from the initiation of clinical development to the initiation of phase II on a development path that has been trodden before by small molecules. And we are so far encouraged and excited about the progress of that program. So one of the questions that should be asked is, how does this product that you're developing fit into the broader landscape of therapies that are available for women that are suffering from hot flashes associated with menopause?
There has been a lot of recent activity and discussion on hormone therapies as a first-line treatment. Of course, recently, in November, the black box warnings that were broadly on hormonal therapies were removed. We think that's a terrific thing, and it's a good step to raising awareness and to having more women have options for this kind of therapy. We do think that the first-line therapy will be hormonal therapy for most patients. There are, however, a significant portion of patients that are either hard contraindicated or that cannot tolerate hormonal therapies, and our estimate that that is roughly 20%. That is either because of risks associated with oncology, previous experience in oncology with cardiovascular conditions or family history that can increase risk.
About the science, NK3R is a target that is expressed in the brain, but it's expressed in a part of the brain that is part of the hypothalamus called the infundibular nucleus. One of the questions that immediately comes up when you're developing antibodies for brain targets is, can you get target engagement on the receptors that are on the neurons in that part of the brain? It turns out that the infundibular nucleus is designed to be able to sense and respond to peptides and other hormones that are in the blood. That part of the brain has a semipermeable barrier that basically consists of fenestrated vessels. On this diagram here, I've shown schematically the infundibular nucleus on the left. In the infundibular nucleus, there are neurons called KNDy neurons.
The KNDy neurons are sort of where the action happens in the initiation of a hot flash. So, in normal women pre-menopause, KNDy neurons are kept in balance through a suppressive effect of estrogen and an activating effect of NKB. As you pass through menopause, estrogen levels fall. When estrogen levels fall, NKB starts to ramp up, and the neurons become overly excited. What happens then is that you get periodic firing of the neurons. Those neurons fire both to the kisspeptin pathway, which is trying to bring up hormone levels, but also that penetrates across the blood-brain barrier to another part of the brain called the preoptic nucleus, which is the part of the brain that governs the thermoregulatory net or circuits that govern body temperature.
So when that happens, then you get a spontaneous and rapid vasodilation, sweating, and in moderate to severe VMS, these are conditions that are difficult or impossible to ignore. It disrupts sleep. It disrupts activities. And it is something that is extremely difficult and negatively affects the quality of life of women that are dealing with this. So the idea for small molecules that have been developed, as well as for our antibody, is to block NK3R, which is sending that signal to hyperactivate the KNDy neurons. And we have designed ABCL635 to get to those neurons and to bind them and to shut them down very potently. That normalizes the activity between the infundibular nucleus and the preoptic nucleus and suppresses both the severity and the frequency of hot flashes. That pathway, as I mentioned, has been clinically proven.
There are recently, within the last two years, two approved products, both small molecules. The first is a product, fezolinetant, brand name Veozah from Astellas. It was approved on May 12th, 2023. It's a daily oral treatment, and it has been proven to be safe and effective for treating hot flashes, but has some liabilities on the label, which includes a black box warning for liver toxicity and the requirement for liver monitoring. More recently, Bayer has a second molecule. This is both an NK3R and an NK1R antagonist. It was approved in October of last year. Again, a daily oral treatment. It does not have a black box warning, but it does have a requirement for liver monitoring. And it also has some warnings for somnolence or CNS depression, which is believed to be associated with antagonism of NK1R.
Our differentiation thesis is that we believe an antibody treatment can engage with this target and have first improved dosing convenience. We are designing our TPP to be a once-monthly subcutaneous injection. Second, because, first of all, antibodies do not metabolize or concentrate in the liver. Because we do not believe that the liver signals that have been seen with the small molecules are on-target effects, we believe that our antibody should be clear in a liver signal and so not have that liability and toxicity. Finally, because we do not antagonize NK1R, we do not expect to see somnolence as one of the adverse events. Because we believe that we won't have to dial back the concentration due to liver toxicity, we believe we can get the antibody to a concentration that achieves better target engagement.
This is particularly exciting given the clinical development of fezolinetant, where in the early studies, particularly the phase II, it was evident that both the efficacy and the biomarkers, which are a signal of target engagement, were better at doses that were unable to be taken forward into phase III. So in phase II, fezolinetant was tested up to 180 mg per day. And ultimately, it went into phase III and has been approved at 45. And so we believe it has left considerable or there's potential for a considerable improvement in target engagement and hence for efficacy. With respect to elinzanetant or Linquit, it appears that the efficacy of that product is similar to Veozah. So if we can beat Veozah, then we would expect also to be able to beat elinzanetant. But of course, we need to prove that through clinical studies.
As I mentioned, ABCL635 started enrolling early last year. It has moved through the first part of Phase I/II study. We are anticipating a full data or a full data readout that includes safety and PK data from the single and multiple ascending dose, as well as early safety and efficacy in a phase II portion of Phase I/II study, which is a placebo-controlled randomized study, double-blind, that is using endpoints that are the registrational endpoints. We believe this is an extremely exciting and important catalyst for us that's coming up in the next few months. With that catalyst, if it works out the way that we want, we would have significantly de-risked that product. We are, in anticipation of that, thinking about how we would set up and take this forward into late-stage studies next year.
So just to sum up, and then I'll open up for questions. Last year, I believe I had this slide up, and it was a presentation to you, the investment community of what our priorities are going to be for 2025. It was to take our first two programs into clinical development. That has been achieved. It was to nominate an additional development candidate. We have, as I've just told you, now nominated two, both ABCL635 and ABCL386. And we have also completed our platform investments, which includes what has been a multi-year build at infrastructure and our GMP manufacturing facility, which is now up and running. And of course, the last one there is to have initiated the use of that facility. And in December of last year, we did begin the engineering runs, and we are now using that facility to manufacture products for our pipeline.
We ended last year with about or on the third quarter of $680 million in liquidity. And when we look forward to 2026, our priorities are all about the pipeline. It is, of course, first moving ABCL635 to that big readout that I told you about. We expect to have a readout of ABCL575 at the end of the year. That'll be safety and PK. And the two development candidates that are now in IND enabling work, ABCL688 and ABCL386, continue to push those forward, as well as to nominate one additional candidate. So whereas we were a pre-clinical development candidate, transitioning from platform to product development last year, this year we find ourselves in a very interesting place where within the next few months, we have our first big readout on ABCL635, our lead program.
We'll have a readout coming up on ABCL575 near the end of the year. And then much of the attention and effort in the company is to set up what can be a very interesting late 2026, early 2027 with potential catalysts, including initiation of trials for ABCL688, ABCL386, nominating a new development candidate, and as I mentioned, bringing our lead program into late-stage studies. So with that, I will open up for questions, and thank you all for your attention. And just before we begin, I might invite Sarah Noonberg, our CMO, and Andrew Booth to come and join me on the stage, as I expect some of the questions might be better handled by them. Why was it?
Do you need a mic or?
Do we need a mic or are we going to?
No, we can start with the gentleman over there, and I'll come over to you right after, please.
Can you talk about any difficulties in finding skilled labor for manufacturing? Lots of companies your size would be using a CDMO. Can you just talk about that decision?
Yeah, I'm happy to start, and I'll maybe hand off to Andrew because he could give you more color as to the motivation and how we got into this, so it was in 2020 that we made the decision to build the manufacturing facility. That was, of course, at the height of the pandemic, and the Government of Canada was looking for opportunities to start to build up bioresilience within the country, so there was a strong motivation nationally to do that. AbCellera was highly involved in COVID-19. We had a good relationship, and we took on that project to build what is now really the only fully enabled antibody manufacturing facility in the country. I often say, had I known how difficult it would be to stand that up from zero, particularly in a country where there hasn't been a big presence, I might have balked at that.
We put it together. She's not here today, but Véronique Lecault, our Chief Operating Officer at the time and now Chief Technical Officer, did a magnificent job of doing that. We feel very fortunate that we have now done that. We see it as a very strategic asset. It allows us to be more flexible, to be faster. Increasingly, it's apparent that not having to file your IP early is a big advantage for the company. We're very pleased with that.
Yeah, and in terms of the talent, I think initially it was also one of the tasks in standing up that facility to recruit all of the people that we would need that had the expertise to do that, not only establish it, but then run it. We brought in a number of key people as a part of that in the recruitment and have managed to fill out an exceptional team, not only in the process development, so upfront cell line development, the manufacturing team, and the quality team that is in place. So that was a big lift over the last four years, but now that team is in place, and they're looking forward to doing their first manufacturing on these new development candidates that Carl mentioned earlier in 2027 or 2026 for the clinical trials in 2027.
I might just add a little bit of context that's related to your question. So in 2023, I mentioned we had built the company really to be a high-volume partnering machine. So it was an early discovery machine. The decision to turn towards development requires a lot of things that change within the company. And one of the things that I think is not apparent from the outside, but has been a lot of work, is reorganizing the company and moving a lot of weight from the early discovery, where it's really about scalable delivery of the early part of drug development and moving that towards the development side of the organization. And so there's been probably well north of 150 people that have moved over or that have been hired into that part of the organization.
And by way of this answer, I'll also say that bringing Sarah on recently as CMO to lead that part of it completes that transition from my mind. Not that we don't have to build some more still, but we feel like we're in really good shape.
Yeah, I just wondered, I was surprised to see that you indicated on the slide that the injectable is preferred over the oral. Can you explain that to me?
Yeah, so great question. So we did a market survey through a third party, and we asked women that were experiencing hot flashes of the correct age, given an equal efficacy and safety profile, what would be preferred. We weren't sure which way that would go. So it turned out that in the whole sample, which was about 70 women, 55% said they would prefer a once-monthly injectable to a daily oral, just based on convenience. And when you looked at the subgroup of women that had experience with injectables, that preference was much stronger. It was about 75%. And we attribute that in large part to the fact that autoinjectors have become very good. You don't see the needle. It's 20 seconds. It's relatively painless.
The prevalence of people using injectables, particularly with the GLPs, I think has normalized that in a way that there was, for many women, a strong preference to not have to worry about a pill, to be able to travel without that and just have a single injectable every month.
Is the goal here we have seven years of dosage once a month?
It would be once monthly injectable for the duration where the symptoms last, yes.
Okay, how long is that? Four to seven years?
Roughly seven years on average.
Great.
I think so.
Maybe I'll take the next one. Firstly, it's very impressive how you guys have changed the company into a development company over the last couple of years, but if I want to understand for your lead assets, say, ABCL635 and the broader pipeline, what is your appetite about in terms of investing in the later stage as well as balancing out, broadening your portfolio as a whole, and how do you guys think about that?
It's a great question. I think it's a question that every or that many biotech companies deal with. It's a question we really think about because we do have the engine that can continue to bring high-quality assets forward. And our default is that we only bring things into the portfolio if we have strong conviction and we think like owners on the programs. So the default is that we're going to take these forward as long as it makes sense. If we have a positive readout of ABCL635 and we're feeling very good about that outcome, but biology can surprise you, so we have to wait to get that data. Our expectation is that we will take that into late-stage studies. And if that helps to lower the cost of capital, then maybe there's an opportunity to even fill up the balance sheet again.
Andrew might comment on that. But without doing that, given our liquidity position, we can take that into late-stage studies and advance the assets that I have on the slide without needing to worry about that in the near term. If you start to have multiple late-stage assets, of course, that becomes a different conversation, but that's a first-world problem that we would welcome.
Yeah, maybe just one additional piece of color on that is for 635, certainly, and Sarah can speak to the phase III or the pivotal trial there. As far as pivotal trials go, relatively inexpensive in terms of the number of patients and the cost per patient. And so we look at these all on a case-by-case basis. So in contrast to ABCL575, even advancing it, because of the nature of the indication, we're not going to be doing a broad phase II in ABCL575, the OX40 ligand. That'd be maybe too expensive for us, and we have said openly that we're open to partnering that asset. And really, the biggest value inflection point on that is going to be the readout of Sanofi's amlitelimab, which they were quite bullish on earlier this week, and we're looking forward to seeing that data in the first quarter.
Just a follow-up to that. So what was the data in phase I that led you to feel confident about moving 635 to phase II? And for phase II, what would you be looking for?
Right, I'll take that. In any phase I study, the most important thing we're going to be looking for is safety. Obviously, with the safety profile, in particular, the black box warning for Veozah and the warning on liver tox for Linquit, liver monitoring, ALT transaminases, and bilirubin is going to be a key part of safety. Seeing that, as well as ensuring we don't see any crossover with NK1R, we certainly wouldn't expect it with the biology, but making sure that the safety profile differentiation, that's our hypothesis, is bearing out. I think that's first and foremost. Second, we're going to be looking for target engagement. I think as Carl highlighted, a key scientific risk was, could we get sufficient target engagement in the hypothalamus, in the infundibular nucleus, to be able to modulate these KNDy neurons that are at the heart of thermoregulation control?
And so seeing the dose-dependent effects on our biomarker really gives us a sense of, yes, we can achieve target engagement and a clear sense of what our likely target dose is to move forward. So that's second. And then third, we did some modeling on the preclinical side as to what we expected our half-life to be. And our target product profile is once a month. We wanted to make sure we were reasonably on par with that. So those are the key aspects that we're looking at in the phase I data that give us a lot of confidence to move into phase II. What we expect to learn from phase II: this is a phase II study. It's randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled.
So it has the appropriate bells and whistles and robustness to tell us in the target patient population with the registration endpoints, do we have treatment effect that is on par or greater than the established oral small molecules? And it'll also tell us a good bit and confirm what we believe is the likely dose to take forward into late-stage development. So that's going to be a pivotal readout. It'll propel us, if positive, into global regulatory discussions to rapidly align on a phase III path. And the phase III path is not something we're going to have to start from scratch. It's a pretty tried and true. And as Andrew mentioned, these are very sort of straightforward endpoints. They're patient-reported. It doesn't require central review or scans or other kind of more complicated safety aspects. So we believe this is a highly efficient clinical development path.
Sarah, just to follow up, is there a potential for increased efficacy?
You know, as Carl mentioned, we do believe that that's a real potential, both because when you look at the phase II dose range finding data from Veozah, what you really saw was up to 180 mg per day, in particular with improving severity of hot flashes, but even to a lesser, but still observable perspective, improving frequency of hot flashes, those higher doses were more effective, but they also saw a dose-dependent effect on liver function tests, so they had to scale back that phase III and registrational dose. So we believe that they left some efficacy on the table because of the need to control for an overall benefit risk.
We not only have the ability to dose higher, to have a higher degree of target engagement, but if you look at the PK/PD relationships that Veozah published in their phase I data, they're only seeing robust target engagement for part of the day. It's got a relatively short half-life. With a monoclonal antibody, we get target exposure over the course of many, many, many days. So both of those features give us reason to believe that we could see improved efficacy. That said, even if our efficacy was on par, if we have a drug that doesn't require liver monitoring, doesn't induce drug-induced liver injury, doesn't have drug-drug interactions, has the convenience of once-monthly dosing, even equivalent efficacy, we see as an improved option for patients.
I feel like I've been hogging the stages. Is there anyone else who wants to ask a question from the audience? Well, in that case, then I might actually continue. So I've understood quite a bit around the 635, but we understand there are quite a few, there are two to three different programs that are coming to the clinic in 2027. Can you talk to us about your strategy on how you select these programs?
Yeah, sure. I can take that one. So our view first is that the space, or I'd say antibody therapeutics in general, maybe biotech and biopharma in general, is becoming increasingly competitive for a variety of reasons. People are enabled. There's been a lot of discussion at this conference here about the degree of activity and the speed, both of discovery and development in China. We believe in order to really win and create value, you need to find those big opportunities where you have really moved the needle on unmet need and where you're really bringing innovation. So in order to do that, one, we have a technology platform that supports that work, and two, we have quite a large activity, I'd say an unusually large activity in discovery because we are looking for those really big win projects, and those are going to be harder.
They're going to take longer. There'll be more attrition. But we want to take that attrition in discovery. The things that ultimately rise to the surface are the ones that meet our framework. And that means we've got unusually high conviction in the biology. We understand the biology. Ideally, it has some clinical evidence. We need to have a clear case for differentiation, so not just incremental, but something that is really moving the needle that will win in the marketplace. We need to have a development path, ideally, where we can get more conviction at a reasonable amount of time and money, particularly for a small company like ourselves.
Commercial.
Commercial. Of course, you're looking for a large unmet medical need and a big market opportunity. So trying to find things where it's a technological advantage, where it's a contrarian idea, where maybe there's a new modality that allows you to come at known target biology a new way that has a significant advantage, that's what you're going to see coming into the pipeline. When you look forward maybe to mid-2027, if everything stays on track the way we're looking, we should have five clinical programs outside of the OX40 ligand program, which is a spectacular target, but is following a few years behind Amlitelimab. Really, the differentiation there is extended half-life and maybe six-month dosing.
Apart from that 575, you're going to see molecules where there's a lot of innovation and where these are swings where we think there's a good chance that these could be blockbusters if, in fact, they turn out the way we hope and the way we intend in clinical development.
Perfect. And given the time we have, I think we have time for one last question. I think, Andrew, this one's for you. You guys are starting off with a really, really good liquidity position with $630 million. But moving forward, how do you look at cash burn for the business, especially given the backdrop of your portfolio and the projects that you guys are working on at the moment?
Yeah. And the liquidity position at the end of Q3 is about $680 million, just over $500 million in cash, and the balance being from the contributions that we've worked out, as Carl mentioned, with the Government of Canada funding and Government of British Columbia funding. In the past, that's an admirable liquidity position. And in addition to that, over the last number of years, we've made big investments into the GMP facility and our lab office buildings. We've actually funded those entirely off of our balance sheet. So we own them. We are the tenant. We are the landlord. We are the bank behind those, actually. And so that's an opportunity for us to get additional liquidity off of those assets. And of course, you see them on our balance sheet. That's not reflected in that liquidity number that I mentioned.
Having said that, in our operating cash flows, we're using about $30 million a year, sorry, $30 million a quarter, so about $120 million a year, and in the past, you'll notice as well, large investments in the PP&E. Those large investments are largely done, so our GMP facility is ready to go, and you won't see those going forward. It'll turn more into kind of CapEx maintenance. They're significantly lower, and so with that cash burn and that cash burn includes advancing 635 through its clinical trial and advancing that other portfolio and bringing them into the clinic in 2027, we'll use about $120 million in operating cash flow, and so we have more than we have quite a significant amount of liquidity and runway, at least the next three years, as we like to say.
Perfect. And with that, thank you so much, AbCellera team.
Thank you.