Paul Bolno: So I think that’s something that we and importantly GSKs are interested in exploring, obviously, off of the biomarker. Again, it’s an important factor of how we think about — thinking about programs that we select as we’re developing our programs within our pipeline, which is, if you have a clinically validated biomarker and that biomarker is actually the treatment for disease on the case of Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, it’s the deficiency of Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency protein. If you can restore that protein back to functional levels and that creates the potential for registration. So I think both we and GSK are interested in utilizing that biomarker as a potential strategy, but thinking then more broadly about how to continue to build that to optimize the commercial. So I think there’s a lot of opportunity for AATD and we’re excited to work with our partners to maximize that opportunity.
Unidentified Participant: Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from Joon Lee with Truist. Your line is now open.
Joon Lee: Hey, thanks for taking our follow-up. Regarding the sRNA program, angiotensolivos can just about do many of the same things that sRNA’s can do. So how are you thinking about diseases for which ASL may be more appropriate versus sRNA? And it’s a bit of a loaded question, but in your opinion, do you think the valuation discrepancy between differences in the size of the adjustable targets or some perceived superiority of one versus the other platform? Just would appreciate your thoughts there. Thank you.
Paul Bolno: I’ll take your last question first and say that you all are much better than I am around assessing the differential valuation between . I think they’re both companies that have been in the space for a long time and are both trying to address unmet need as best possible utilizing their platform. I think to your first question, I think what this technology capability inside Wave does by having what we believe through the best in class RNAi approach, is really do what we set up from the beginning to do, which is not to be restricted by a particular modality. I think if you’re a hammer everything looks like it now and the opportunity for us to say, well, what’s the best way to address the given target with the right tool?
I think this establishes for silencing the ability for us to think creatively really about what is the best opportunity for different indications and separate tissues, not because that’s the technology we have, but we have the optionality of thinking about qualitative. I think that’s the real opportunity set. I think that was one of the real drivers for why we were excited usually to work with GSK is really to think about a target universe. Where we’re unrestricted on RNA medicines and can really think about the flexibility of again, right target right indication. Again, a great example is, we could have used RNAi to silence AATD as others are doing. We thought for the biology, the best approach was to correct it, fix it and restore the protein function, not just by giving it like protein ingredient, but actually fixing it and generating more of it and that comes through RNA editing.
And so, I think having these tools on our hand, to really say best approach to deal with really important meaningful diseases, I think does set us up for future success.
Joon Lee: When do you think we’ll see first update on sRNA?
Paul Bolno: As we said, I think we’re going to give a broader update, historically, as you know, we have done R&D days with big updates both on platform. And then importantly, programs as we shared earlier, when we typically share updates on programs, it’s not just a list of target that usually is substantiated by data. So excited to share progress later this year.
