So that’s a few of the major differences between these. And if we look at it from a financial perspective there’s, a couple of things that are significantly different while they have these upfront payment milestones and royalties, one thing that’s significantly different. Is that times that revenue recognition and initial payment is a lot faster in BioStrand, but in addition to that, the profit margins are extremely different because it’s not the full wet lab component of what we would do in a traditional Talem setting where that wet lab work would require fairly substantial expenditures for IPA to contribute to that component of a partnership. In this particular case, in silico work it’s not only much faster, but it’s much less expensive for us to conduct with the majority of the cost just being the full-time equivalent of the employees working on the program.
Will McHale: Got it, thanks that’s all really helpful. Just one more quickly from me is, could you comment on the sort of pipeline for these types of partnership deals, do you anticipate adding additional partners over fiscal ’24?
Jennifer Bath: Yes, that’s, I’m sure, a question a lot of people are wondering. So, we do anticipate that, as we mentioned, we’re already finished with the in silico portion of BriaCell. Astellas is already moving along quite quickly. We actually do already have several groups that have engaged us for codes. And as I mentioned, about $790,000 worth of code queued in BioStrand so there’s a few interesting things with regard to that. With regard to three of those codes, which make up about $640,000, it’s about 80% of that total value in codes. These are actually related to de novo in silico programs where it is still like kind of a beta pricing in this particular case. But it’s being run under fee-for-service work, because this is a situation where the client, actually prefer the fee-for-service model in nature to retain IPA custody with some very important data that they were bringing into the study.
So, we do have those particular codes out in an active conversation. Beyond that, we have several different large pharmaceutical companies that we are working with that all seem to be trending in a very similar direction. It does seem like when we’re meeting with the larger groups at these different pharmaceutical firms that they are all interested in each of the aspects of BioStrand three revenue streams. And so, we do – we first actually, we believe there’s a decent probability we’ll be onboarding a private study for the data management program out of one of these, but in addition – to that conversation around – can you still hear me?
Will McHale: Yes.
Jennifer Bath: Okay. I apologize I had a problem with my headset. But there is active conversation around further collaborations of this nature. And in those particular cases, we have committed to not doing the early adopter pricing or beta pricing. The reason why we enabled these codes, three codes to this one large pharmaceutical company to go out under beta pricing is they are one of those first four companies that we approached where we knew they had a particular target that they’ve been working for 15 years on has never been successful. So, they were one of the ones that was, qualified under that original arrangement many months back. So, we do see demand and – we are moving quite quickly through the ones that we do have. So yes, indeed, we do plan to bring more of these in, but the pricing structure will be changing and we won’t be offering those beta pricing or early adopter pricing fees.
Will McHale: Got it, thanks a lot. I will jump back there.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ramakanth Swayampakula with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead.
