They are actually — and so what we actually believe is that the evolution of milder conditioning could actually expand and grow the size of the eligible patient population for all. I think, the important thing, obviously, also is that we are looking beyond, not just conditioning, but looking to in vivo editing as part of our strategy, for the very simple reason that we believe that in vivo editing will further increase the eligibility of the patient population for treatment.
Operator: Our next question is from Debjit Chattopadhyay with Guggenheim.
Ry Forseth: This is Ray Forseth on for Debjit. I just want to build off of the conditioning discussion and sort of get an outline of your strategy. Is it sort of bifurcated kind of exploring both in vivo editing and the opportunity to in-license assets that would be alternative to busulfan. Can you sort of map that out for us? And just wanted to get your thoughts, too, on the ASGCT abstracts and sort of what you see in the competitive landscape around conditioning, especially given that competitor is kind of moving forward with the CD117 approach?
Gilmore O’Neill: Yes. Thanks very much, Debjit. I think I’ll start and then I will have Baisong comment. From a strategic point of view, we are using a two-pronged strategy. We have directed investment, significant investment internally to our discovery of in vivo editing for hematopoietic stem cells. And I think, as I said earlier, we believe that this is a problem that we can focus on, where we can focus on delivery, where certainly in humans, we believe we have solved the, two of the three challenges around the selection of a CRISPR enzyme as well as a target. In parallel, we actually are continuing — have ongoing evaluations of milder conditioning approaches. And I think you asked more importantly, or in follow-up a question about the, for example, CD117. I’ll ask Baisong just to talk about that.
Baisong Mei : Thanks for your question. I can say that we have looked into this milder conditioning in very deep, looking the space as well as internal efforts wise. And there were generally probably two approaches. One is that CD117 antibody and in that direction. And the other one is actually doing the cell modification together with gene editing. So, the latter approach is still — is in infancy, if I may say, and the previous approach with antibody have many different exercise on that. So I think we are very closely monitoring the space and understand these. And I also want to mention that the milder conditioning, if successful, is not going to be only successful for sickle cell transplant, it’s going to be successful for leukemia and many different gene therapeutic areas. So, we are actually very much looking into this space.
Operator: Our next question is from Madhu Kumar with Goldman Sachs.
Unidentified Analyst: This is Rob on for Madhu. We were just wondering how should we think about forward OpEx, given — forward OpEx, particularly R&D, given the robust recruitment into RUBY? And how long will spend be around cell editing and transplants versus follow-up?
Gilmore O’Neill: I’m sorry, Rob, I actually had great difficulty hearing your question. Could you just repeat it, please?
Unidentified Analyst: Sure. We are just wondering how we should be thinking about forward OpEx, particularly spending in regard to transfusions versus follow-up?
Gilmore O’Neill: Okay. So, I think you’re asking — I want to make sure, you’re asking about forward-looking OpEx around the execution of the RUBY study. Is that correct? Okay. Michelle?
