I think these are obviously intriguing, exciting early indications, but by no means, our view is that this is where the drug should go only. I think if the drug fulfilled that profile, and we believe that the company is positioned to support the growth of the company, the way we see it today, for us, will be a no brainer to opt-in when the time is right. Again if the drug fulfill their profiles, and the reasons are vary not only the value that can be created downstream, but the way that our collaboration is built. We’ve done all sorts of analysis and all the analysis that we’ve done financially, even though it might be a bit more expensive early on in the opt-in phase while we’re doing co-development, the value creation at the back end is so vast.
That decision will be so easy. Yes, if we have successful programs with Phase 1, which we believe we will for STAT6 and TYK2, I mean I suppose that our cost of capital will be different, that we can continue to sustain the growth of this company to support the pipeline. So hopefully that answered the question, but that’s how we’re viewing it at this point.
Marc Frahm: Okay, thanks. Very helpful.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from Brad Canino from Stifel. Please go ahead.
Brad Canino: Good morning. This is Brad. Perhaps an expansion of the prior questions, really for MDM2 in the data this year, it’d be great to get just more of a scope of the disclosure that you expect to present in terms of patients disease types. And would you flag any key data elements to watch? And then just maybe to be clear on the decision making process at this disclosure, will you be in a position to outline the broader development thesis? Thank you.
Nello Mainolfi: So maybe just high level, and then I’ll let Jared comment on some more specifics if we’re willing to do so. But I think the totality of our data, of our disclosure plans, which hopefully was clear enough from our press release and from comments from Jared earlier. So what is the totality of the data? Totality of the data is large, hopefully close to complete data set from the dose escalation in both solids, lymphomas and leukemias married with the patient stratification work that we’re doing that should enable us to build a development program extremely differentiated from others in the space. I think if those things come together, and we believe we should be able for those things to come together in 2024, and if all of those are suggesting that we both have activity and also we have, let’s call it a smart way to develop this drug, I think that decision of continuing investment will be a no brainer.
Obviously, then depending on nuances there, the decisions could be different. But I think that high level, the expectation. I think this year, what I hear, obviously a lot of excitement around the immunology programs, and we share those, but those will be 2025 data sets, many data sets, impactful data sets. But I also want to make sure we’re also paying attention to 2024 data releases around these programs, because we believe there is an opportunity here to change how we think about this target. Jared, what about patients? I don’t know what we can say.
Jared Gollob: Yes, I mean I think maybe just to briefly elaborate, I mean, obviously, for this program, we do plan on providing a pretty comprehensive update later in the year. As I mentioned earlier, our hope is to be through dose escalation in both arms, the solid tumor, lymphoma arm and the heme malignancy arm, and to really provide a comprehensive update on safety, PD and efficacy. Keeping in mind, again, that one of the important premises here is that this is going to be very differentiated from MDM2 small molecule inhibitors. We want to show that we have a therapeutic index that is superior to MDM2 small molecule inhibitors. So that takes into account both superior safety as well as potentially superior efficacy. And so I think our aim is to be able to show a data set that will hopefully establish that we are well differentiated from MDM2 small molecule inhibitors, and show what the real potential is for this drug in both solid tumors and in liquid tumors.
And to marry that sort of presentation, potentially with a separate presentation on our patient selection strategy, which is also going to be a very important part of what we do moving forward after Phase 1.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from Kalpit Patel with B. Riley Securities. Please go ahead.
Kalpit Patel: Yes. Hey, good morning and thanks for taking the question. One for the STAT6 and TYK2 program, you’ve shown data from the proteome study to confirm the selectivity and maybe rule out the off-target effects. Can you share how many proteins were identified in those studies and what the coverage rate was in those proteome studies? Thank you.
Nello Mainolfi: So we’re not going to share any more data today on that program, and we’re going to be, to be honest, quite sensitive about what else we’re going to share just based on, we want to maintain our competitive advantage here. But that doesn’t mean. I’m not going to answer your question. So we have high proteome coverage in these studies. We usually can detect north of 11,000 proteins in every proteomic study. And what we do at Kymera, we actually look across several cell types. So what we’ve shown, I believe, were PBMCs because we believe are one of the more relevant for the diseases we’re going after. But in order for us to actually cover the whole proteome, which as you know, it’s in the 20,000 proteins roughly, hopefully I didn’t get a wrong number here.
