Rick Bienkowski: Hi, everyone. Welcome to Linda and Eric. So I wanted to get some clarification on manufacturing. The expanded agreement with the Azure group seems to be focused on clinical and commercial readiness for U.S. markets given that the footprint is based in Massachusetts. But does the company have any manufacturing capabilities in European markets? Or would any Europe-based manufacturing have to come from another potential partner?
Gilmore O’Neill: Thanks very much, Rick. You’re quite right in reminding everyone that we have this exciting new agreement with Azure as we get ready for BLA and commercial launch. With regard to ex U.S., I think we’d be consistent in our messaging that we actually would prefer and actually expect a partner to help us with the ex U.S. from the point of view, expanding our footprint. And obviously, when we talk about that, we talk about in terms of co-development, co-commercialization and all the activities necessary for that.
Rick Bienkowski: Right. Got it. And I do have one quick follow-up. So, one of the areas of development that was highlighted back in January of this year was exploring the use of milder conditioning regimens for stem cell transplant. So my question is, once a milder conditioning regimen is developed, I was curious how this could potentially be folded into clinical trials and what the approval pathway looks like here for use with EDIT-301?
Gilmore O’Neill: Thanks very much, Rick, for that and reminding us that importance because, obviously, by creating — or by the development of milder conditioning, we see a path to increasing eligibility for sickle cell disease and TD patients which are very serious diseases. But again, factory condition, you can extend or expand the mild or sorry, the eligible population. We continue to evaluate that and it’s a question really of balancing the reduction of toxicities with engraftment efficacy. In general terms, we see milder conditioning as something that the transplant sites will use. And as they grow comfortable with it, they will expand it across their use protocols. And that’s how we actually would see it enabling autologous ex-vivo therapeutics.
Operator: Our next question comes from Rich Law with Credit Suisse.
Rich Law: My congrats to both, Erick and Linda [ph] for joining the company. So the question I have is like can you provide insight to how the partner programs are progressing, so the 11 alpha beta T cell program for BMS and the NK cell with shoreline Biosciences. And when do you expect these programs to be disclosed in more details? And then I have a second follow-up question.
Baisong Mei: Sure. Thanks very much, Rich. With regard to the [indiscernible], we’re actually happy with the progress. There have been 11 opt-ins, most recently 5 in 2022; two of those opt-ins have passed DC and the most advanced is in IND-enabling studies. Beyond that, it is BMS that is obviously in the driving seat and would actually provide more specifics on the program. And with regard to Shoreline, we’re really delighted to have the opportunity to divest our NK oncology programs to Shoreline. Shoreline is actually happy with where they’re going. And I think really any more specific updates would come from Shoreline.
Gilmore O’Neill: And then the second question I have is following up on the milder conditioning. Would that enable the use of therapy in outpatient setting versus inpatient setting? So that is actually, I think, at the very key optimized conditioning because it’s really a combination of reducing the risk to patients while obviously enabling and still maintaining an optimal transplant and engraftment outcome. But yes, that is one key element. Certainly, either to do it as an outpatient or substantially reduce as the need for inpatient monitoring of the patients and we continue our evaluation of that because we see it as an important element for expanding the eligible patient population.
Operator: Our next question comes from Jack Allen with Baird.
Jack Allen: Congratulations to the team on the progress. Maybe first to start on the clinical side; it seems like you made a lot of progress dosing patients with sickle cell disease that are adults. But I was wondering if you had any comments as it relates to your plans to move into younger patients? I know some of your competitors have moved into patients 12 to 18 years old. I love to hear any thoughts there. And then I have one quick follow-up.
Gilmore O’Neill: Thanks, Jack. I’m going to ask Bean to take that question.
Baisong Mei: Yes, Jeff, thanks for that question. Absolutely, we are intended to expand this study to all age groups. So we are actively working on that. And with more tile data, we are much more comfortable to go beyond the patient population.
Jack Allen: Great. And then maybe on the IP front, you mentioned that the hearings have not been scheduled in this interference case quite yet but I would love to hear any thoughts you have as it relates to leveraging our IP and as some of your competitors advance their potential approval. I guess should we think about potentially a settlement coming before approval? Could it come after? Or I guess how do you think about conversations surrounding that IP and how you’re looking to leverage your strong position there?
Gilmore O’Neill: I think our key position on our IP is that we really want to ensure that it is used to enable therapeutics for multiple patients with multiple frankly, in multiple therapeutic areas. And indeed, there’s a large number of Cas9 products that are in development across both ex vivo and in vivo and across multiple disease areas. As we think about leveraging that from an economic or monetization point of view, we see that, that will vary depending on the stage of development in the disease area. And beyond that, we’re not going to discuss individual companies or negotiations.
Jack Allen: Just sorry, one brief follow-up on IP. Can you just remind us as to who has the duty to litigate IP? Is it you or your licensor from that perspective?
Gilmore O’Neill: So, I think — I’m not going to talk about the details of our legal strategy but the key thing about protection of our IP is that we will actually protect our IP. Obviously, we want to ensure and we are open for business and very willing to give licenses but we will protect our IP.
Jack Allen: Great. Thank you for the color on the progress.
Gilmore O’Neill: Thank you so much.
Operator: Our next question comes from Jay Olson with Oppenheimer.
