Brian McKelligon: So I’ll take that first part and then Joe can talk about how that impacts the guide. So the 2.0 is a field upgrade that will begin next quarter. And there was just some final, I would call it, a validation of verification work sort of the final stages of being development. There’s not any sort of technical risk associated with that. So, again, really standard product development methodologies. And just reminding you that Fusion 2.0 is going to meet the requirements for the multi-slide carrier, some improvements to the operating software and the reagents, but also, as noted in the commentary, the RNAscope for — and also for future RNA. So that will all happen in Q2. In terms of — for the existing customers, how long will it take, that’s a really good question.
Obviously, we want to do it as fast as we can. I would say, the shortest would be six months to nine months. It could maybe take a little bit longer than that, depending upon customer preparedness and whether or not it would interrupt existing studies.
Joe Driscoll: And on your question about what is baked into the guide. So we’re really looking at going from the mid-$30,000 per instrument on average to the low $40,000 on average. And really, there’s a wide array of customers in that mix, right? Some do very little. Some are doing $200,000 per instrument per year. So that’s really what’s baked into the guide right now and it seems very achievable from where we sit right now.
Tejas Savant: Got it. Okay. And then on the PhenoCode panels, similar sort of question really. You talked about really strong traction there at AGBT, as well as the upcoming launches over the course of the year on the discovery side. How much of that is sort of like factored into the guide here?
Joe Driscoll: Not a tremendous amount. It’s certainly a part of the guide, but you’re talking about $1 million or $2 million for the whole year.
Tejas Savant: Got it. Okay. That’s helpful. And then on the multiomic front, Brian
Brian McKelligon: Yeah.
Tejas Savant: is early access sort of eminent in terms of that 100 plex panel rollout. Can you just remind us again how high could protein plex go on that panel? And then by when do you expect to get co-detection and early access, I believe this was — the first version is going to be sequential sections of the data, is that right?
Brian McKelligon: Yeah. So we’ll start with sequential, whether or not we do early access like via services, we’re still sort of debating whether or not we have to do that, because again, as we talked about, we will have probably by the time it comes out, 300 boxes in the market, we just want to make sure that we’re sort of commercially ready for the high-plex RNA and high-plex protein on these serial sections. But, again, as you noted, the multiomics will come earlier. In terms of how high can we go on the protein, we sort of think — there’s no upper limit, but there’s a scientifically reasonable limit and also a cost limit. So I think 100 plex is about as much as I think we think people need right now. And just by comparison, there’s been discussions out amongst the scientific community and others as you think about comparative plex between RNA and pricing.
And there’s commentary that in terms of scientific value, a protein can be, say, 5/10 equivalents of RNA given that sort of a direct measurement of the activity. So we think 100-plex protein is probably where we’re going to stay for a while and then the RNA will be kind of somewhere similar into that range versus serial and then multiomic.
