So, we’ll see how that evolves, but I would expect pretty consistent spend from us on an R&D and a G&A side that centers around the platform, and our goal is to have somebody else pick up the costs for 2203.
Scott Henry: Okay, great. Thank you for taking the questions.
Jerome Jabbour: Thanks, Scott.
Operator: And the next question comes from the line of Julian Harrison with BTIG. Please proceed.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi, good afternoon. This is Rayyan [ph] for Julian. Thanks for taking our questions. Just a couple of questions from us on your LNC platform. How far away from an IND are you with regard to the ongoing preclinical efforts there, and what indications make the most sense if you were to file an IND?
Jerome Jabbour: Great question and appreciate it. So, I would characterize where we are on the platform side. If you’re talking about inflammation and or oncology, we’re triangulating data sets in order to be able to decide on a product candidate. And when you think about what’s going to be next, I think we’re certainly a few months, even a few quarters from a product candidate. You want to make sure that you’re able to have an ideal TPP that’s going to not only meet unmet medical need, but that potential partners see a lot of value in, that you’re putting yourselves in position to have a product candidate that’s going to solve for a number of things. And then after that, IND-enabling studies can take anywhere from 12 to 18 months.
So, our goal internally as we continue to sort of triangulate these things in oncology and inflammation is that an IND filing happens at some point in 2025. That would be our goal. It’s more important for us. It’s not as simple as just we want an IND on file. We want to be able to differentiate ourselves, whether you’re talking about the oral delivery of small oligonucleotides. There we’re targeting inflammatory conditions. With the cytokines we’ve shown already, if IL-17, the TNF-alpha, you’re looking we’ve done psoriasis, we’ve done colitis. We think a colitis sort of GI target makes the most sense. We need more information on that. There may be some other cytokines that are even on a different pathway than TNF-alpha or IL-17 that actually present a greater opportunity.
And oncology, it’s about showing not only that we can safely deliver chemotherapeutics, but that we could target certain tumor cells over others. And so part of what we’ve done is we started with melanoma. We’ve looked at triple negative breast cancer. We’ve looked at other cancer targets and that continues to evolve. We want to be able to show that it’s not just about taking docetaxel and making it safer. It’s about potentially making docetaxel more efficacious or efficacious in a tumor that it hasn’t been able to because it’s not targeted. So I would say as we sit here today, we’re probably 12 to 18 months from an IND filing, but it’s more important for us to sort of align everything so that what we’re creating in terms of a product candidate generates value either to investors, to patients, or to partners who would take those into later stage clinical trials.
Unidentified Analyst: Great. Thank you. Very helpful.
Operator: Thank you. And with that, this will conclude the question-and-answer session and I’ll turn the call back to Jerry Jabbour for closing comments.
Jerome Jabbour: Thanks, Joe. Thank you to everyone for joining us today and for your interest in Matinas. We remain very excited and optimistic about our company’s future and we look forward to reporting further progress during our second quarter conference call in August or before. Thank you again and have a great evening.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference. You may now disconnect your lines at this time. Enjoy the rest of your day.
