Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Evan Seigerman with BMO Capital Markets.
Malcolm Hoffman: Malcolm Hoffman on for Evan. I just want to ask, with your recently announced PRMT5 asset, are you able to comment how long this asset has been in development and whether recent interest from other biotech players might have influenced the decision to pursue the program? And then how should we think about the indications or treatment settings you’re targeting for this asset?
Karen Akinsanya: Just first of all, we will be providing an update on the progress of our program again at Pipeline Day. However, we had initiated that program some time ago, as we stated on the on the call. This program was one of our undisclosed programs. And today, we’re updating you on the status of that. Obviously, we and everyone else is pretty excited about the data that’s been coming out on that mechanism. And so, we’re looking forward to progressing the program and updating you all later on this year.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of David Lebowitz with Citi.
Unidentified Participant: John [ph] for David. Just a quick one, building off the previous question on the BMS collaboration, can you just clarify if there are any other potential financial implications of that decision going forward beyond this quarter as well?
Geoff Porges: The first is that, for several quarters now, we’ve been transitioning our employees over from collaboration programs to proprietary programs. That’s reflected in our reported expense results, but the cost of services for the Drug Discovery side, being flat to slightly down, and then the R&D expense going out. That’s a result of that shift in deployment of those employees in the R&D organization. That’s going to continue in the future after this BMS decision. That trend is going to continue going forward. The second is, of course, that we are no longer eligible for the downstream milestones associated with this programs from BMS. And as Karen mentioned in her remarks, we still believe there are opportunities for us to capture value from those programs, either as proprietary or potential partnering opportunities in the future.
We still have to resolve that and come to some sort of final decision. But that’s an opportunity for us that could potentially offset the milestones that will be foregone because they’re no longer in the BMS collaboration.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Michael Ryskin with Bank of America.
Michael Ryskin: First, I want to ask on the updated guide. I just want to make sure I’m understanding properly. Maintained revenues across the various segments, maintained margins, et cetera, but you are talking about more operating cash use than last year? I think you flagged mix, milestones, new business activity. But clarify, why is that showing up on the cash flows, but not on the P&L? Or maybe it is showing up on the P&L and it’s just sort of not moving that basket of operating expense growth being lower than last year? Any color there?
Geoff Porges: Really good question. It’s because of the disconnect between when we book actual cash from our partners, in part, and when we actually recognize revenue, that’s the first thing. It’s also to do with the actual mix of revenue that we reported during the third quarter. The shift between, for example, prime payments or – that versus new business development activity, for example. So, it’s really in the mix of revenue, as I said, in the prepared remarks, but also the timing and size of milestones and our expectations for business development activity. All three of those things contributed. I will say that the operating cash use in the third quarter was around $50 million. And that’s sort of year-to-date through the third quarter.
