Okay, great, we're at 8 am Pacific Time, 11 am Eastern time. So we will kick it off. Good morning everyone. I'm Matt Foehr, CEO of OmniAb, and I want to thank you all for joining our first Research and Technology Event. We are presenting today from NASDAQ's Entrepreneurial Center, in Downtown San Francisco, which is just a short drive across the Bay Bridge from our headquarters and labs over in Emeryville. It's been just over a year since OmniAb became an independent publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ Exchange. And I want to thank the NASDAQ team here in San Francisco and back in New York, but especially the team here in San Francisco for hosting us today and furnishing this great space for our event this morning. But before I begin, I'd like to remind you that we'll be making forward-looking statements during our presentations. These forward-looking statements, of course, carry risks and uncertainties and actual results may be different from those that are projected. So I'd urge investors to please consult today's earnings release as well as our SEC filings for more information on these risks. So again, welcome. I'm going to provide some opening remarks this morning, some updates on the business and also give a bit of a roadmap to today's presentations. But before I do, I wanted to introduce you to our presenters. We've got a wider cross-section of management. I'm excited that investors and analysts get the chance to meet more of our management and leadership team here. So you'll see presentations from Todd Pettingill, who is our VP of Business Development and Strategy. Todd's been with the OmniAb business really since the beginning of forming the foundation of what has now become OmniAb. He played a critical role in all six…

Good morning, everybody. Great to be here with you. Today, I get to speak about a good topic, the value that we're creating for our partners and what's driving that. As Matt mentioned, we've had a really, a good run over the past several years of increasing our partner base, especially in the last 24 months, which is especially encouraging in light of the recent market headwinds. So as we think what is driving that? There are several factors that jump out of this. But really, we have had at a good run to improve and increase the platform visibility, both through our business development efforts but also through our partners as they've pushed antibodies into the clinic and also gotten them approved. We've also put, as Matt mentioned, we've put a lot of investment into our business development and marketing presence, both increasing the size of the team, but also spending a lot more time at conferences. And that's really been helpful as we've been able to have cutting-edge science that's backed this up and made the message clear. Finally, we're able to be creative in how we license. We don't take a one-size-fits-all approach with our partners. We have a range of different contract types and different things that we can work with to find a deal that works for all of our partners. So with that, we're able to attract a diverse set of partners. We're now starting to define our partner base as different areas, each one has a unique characteristic. First, we have our discovery technology access partners. These are partners who have full access to the platform for both current and potential programs, but also they can develop and commercialize antibody or OmniAb-derived antibody. And that's the majority of our partner base. Next, we…

Thanks, Todd. So I want to take you a bit deeper into the technology behind OmnidAb and single-domain antibodies. Let me start first with a conventional antibody. It's an IgG molecule. This is the predominant antibody formed in most vertebrate species. And it consists of two heavy chains and two light chains held together by disulfide bridge. And at the top of the molecule, there's two binding domains that are comprised of a VH and a VL. And then at the bottom, the base of the Y, if you will, is the Fc domain. This is important for serum stability and effector function. So that's a conventional antibody. Now different species will have alternate forms and in particular, relevant here is in camelids. So this includes camels, llamas, alpacas, have an alternate form of antibody called the heavy-chain-only antibody. So just as it sounds, this form of antibody is devoid of light chains. It just has a VH domain as its binding entity. And this is interesting actually because a typical antibody does need a VH and a VL. And so the llamas or the camelids have had to evolve certain changes in the VH to support stability as a standalone binding element. And that's actually really important because that allows a very stable but small binding entity to exist. And in fact, researchers have taken this entity by itself as just this 15 kilodalton sized binding unit. And this compact size, this opens up a lot of potential in terms of what kinds of binding molecules you can create with it. And so just to give you a flavor for what can be done here, you can take these individual antigen binding scaffolds and put them on to a variety of different types of molecules. So on the left-hand…

Hey, everyone. I'm excited to be here to talk about how we're enhancing discovery with OmniDeep. In May, we launched OmniDeep to highlight for our partners, the suite of in silico tools that we have for therapeutic discovery and optimization. These tools are woven through our technology stack to help us create diverse repertoires, to help us screen millions of cells. And they help us deliver the right antibody. Our goal is to use these in silico tools to streamline and assist drug discovery. We want to make our capabilities ever more efficient and effective for our partners. OmniDeep is built on four fundamental pillars. It's based on deep repertoires from our animals. It's based on deep screening with proprietary hardware and software. It is based on deep sequencing, which collects in-depth information and is based on deep learning tools that help us understand this information and make insightful decisions. I want to emphasize that the input data of OmniDeep are the deep repertoires that we get from our animals. These repertoires are generated by biological intelligence. This is the interplay between rational genetic design and powerful in vivo process. For example, on this image here, is a illustration of what repertoire space may look like in three different animals. They are immunized with different variants of the same targets, two protein variants and one genetic immunization with either mRNA or DNA. And you can see the repertoires look different between these animal. And so biological intelligence allows us to create vast and diverse antibody repertoires within an animal and across animals. This is a large space, and we need to bring unique tools to be able to understand and tap into what we create. And here we can bring the xPloration platform. This is our AI-driven deep functional screening…

Thanks, Bob. So Bob and Bill just did a great job introducing some of the innovations that we have in our technology platform. What I'd like to do now is move on to the Ion channel opportunity to that's coming out of the development of those innovations and some really interesting things that we have ongoing. So for those of you not familiar with this space, I'm just going to walk you through what Ion channel is. Everyone, I think is familiar with ions. These are atoms or molecules that are charged, sodium potassium when we go to our physicians, and we get our blood chemistries done, we measure all these things. Every cell needs to manage the composition and the concentrations of ions across cell membranes to maintain health and a normal status and avoid disease. And it does that by expressing ion channel proteins primarily. And what these proteins are. They're shown on the cartoon on the right-hand side of the slide that you see. The green is the protein and the little orange circle spheres are the ions going through, depicted to go through. And you can see on the right-hand side, the ions going through that one channel. And it's a big hole, and that's a channel through the membrane. Hence the name ion channel proteins for this class. And when those ions flow through, they can translate signals, they can change a lot of properties and cells. It results in very small currents and that's what's shown in the animation on the bottom there that you can see. Those downward blips of deflection are one protein, one ion channel opening at a time and also very, very small electrical current coming from that. And with sophisticated technologies, we can report these currents and do things…

Thanks, Doug. So today, I'm going to start by talking a little bit about our third quarter financial results. And then I'll kind of switch gears and talk about some metrics for the broader portfolio. So let's start with the third quarter results. So total revenue for the third quarter was $5.5 million compared to $6.9 million in the prior year quarter. We saw an increase in the license and milestone revenue this quarter that's related to a milestone that we received from Seagen as well as the Genovac program that was partnered with Pfizer. That increase in the milestone revenue was offset by the decrease on service revenue as a result of our completion of work on certain programs. The royalty revenue was $500,000 this quarter, which was comparable to the prior year period, but actually showed an uptick relative to where we've been in the first couple of quarters of the year. On the operating expense side, our R&D expense for the third quarter was $13.9 million compared to $13.2 million in the prior year quarter. The increase was primarily due to higher personnel costs. On the G&A side, we also saw an increase in costs up to $8.5 million. That increase was due to headcount that we've hired as we've become a public company as well as those public company costs, you go back to Q3 last year, we were not a public company at that point. The net loss for the quarter was $15.7 million or $0.16 per share. Moving to our year-to-date results, on a year-to-date basis, our license and milestone revenue was significantly up from last year. You'll recall, this is primarily due to the recognition of a $10 million milestone that we got from Janssen for the launch of TECVAYLI in Europe. The…

All right. So the first question is going to come in from Joe Pantginis. Joe go ahead, unmute your line and hopefully we will be able to hear your question.

Great, guys. Can you hear me?

We can hear you, Joe.

Awesome. Great to see all of you. Todd, I hope you had a great trip. So a couple of topics I'd like to discuss. First, on the underlying business. First, Matt, you mentioned about looking at minimal headcount growth. I was just curious if you could provide any more color with that since you have continued to grow your technology basis, so how those sort of two reconcile?

Yes. Yes, Joe, thanks for the question. Really, so we've come off a year, now this last year or so with pretty substantial headcount growth. It's been one year since we split off to become an independent publicly traded company. And as a result of that, we added our administrative functions. Kurt built out his finance team. We added an internal HR people team and we've leaned into other areas of new science. We've added new team members in our screening platform as well as on our engineering platforms, also have continued to, as we have for many years, lean into the AI and ML elements of big data management and other things that that Bob highlighted. So we've come off a year where we've added a significant number of fantastic new colleagues. But as we look forward, I do see some headcount growth, but it's fairly minimal in many ways, largely because the business is highly leverageable, right? There's an efficiency built into the business around how we work with our partners, how they leverage work that we do for them, but we are also the beneficiaries of the fact that our partners have some of their own work streams as well. So really, what is meant by that statement is that we see substantial growth coming in terms of new partnerships and new programs being added to the portfolio, but expect those can grow at a higher clip than we need to grow our infrastructure. And I think that really says something about the levers that we have in the business. I don't know, Kurt, maybe you want to add anything?

No, that's absolutely right.

Great. Thanks. And the second part of the business question is, obviously, Kurt, you talked about headwinds in the markets and what have you and you see attrition of clients or partners, so obviously, the main reasons, which no one should be surprised, failed clinical trials or strategic moves by your partners. I'm curious, has any attrition come from the lack -- or companies that face financing headwinds that are not able to commit the capital that they want to at the time to be able to partner with you?

Yes, you could -- I mean I can add as well. But I'll make a comment and then Kurt can fill in anything I missed. But the first point I'd make, Joe, is as you look at our metrics over the recent years, everything we report is net of attrition, right? So we report our partners net of attrition, our programs net of attrition. And those have all continued to grow even in this I'll say, last 24-month period of headwinds in the pharmaceutical industry. So we've continued to grow both our partner count and our new programs net of attrition. But we have had some partners who have, I'll say, gone away. I mean one that was disclosed was Seeker Biologics. They were one really interesting science and were VC-funded a few years ago. But early in the year this year, announced that they were closing down. Actually, some of the programs, those assets actually returned to us, and those are ones that could be potential for future partnering events in the future. But I think that's one example. When you talk about bigger partners, it's a little harder to define some time. So Kurt referenced clinical attrition that we saw early in the year this year. That clinical attrition was driven by a global big pharma partner who was realigning therapy areas. He decided to get out of inflammation. It was the specific example. I can't talk about the specific partner, but that is one of those situations very hard to define if that is that macro or is that driven internally? I think even with perfect information and dialogue with the partners or best information we can get, it is a bit hard to know exactly if something like that is driven by macro factors or simply a business refocusing. So I mean that's kind of answer. Kurt, if I left anything out?

No, I mean, I think that's right. When somebody says they're going to do a reprioritization, is that truly reprioritization or is that a funding issue? I'm not sure we'll know. But in some ways, I'm not sure it really matters to us. It's a program that maybe is being delayed or not going to get the economics for us. So in some ways, it doesn't necessarily matter.

No, absolutely fair. And then the other topic is -- and thank you for indulging me, obviously, I'm very happy to see the launch of DAB today. I'll keep all the pictures of people dabbing out of my notes. So two parts there. So the first part is seeing the multi-block or building block potential of this makes me think of other companies, say like in the Anticalin space or what have you, where you could come up with a lot of unique structures. Do you have any early information about the ease or difficulties of future manufacturing of these sort of multifaceted structures? Are you looking to present any experimental data from the DAB program publicly? And then lastly, can you talk a little more with regard to DABs and their differentiation or more specific epitopes specificity compared to a traditional antibody. Does it change the calculus on clinical applications?

Yes. Great question, Joe. I'll let Bill comment on those. I will say that the early feedback from partners has been fantastic. Todd highlighted some of that in his section. But in terms of them understanding the part of the industry, the need that this technology can fill that initial feedback has been great. As I mentioned, we already have a couple of partners who have programs that are in progress that are already in progress. So those started here in the fourth quarter. But those are already moving in part. But Bill can talk about our disclosure plans. We have a couple of big presentations coming up from scientific conferences and then can address your other questions. So Bill.

Yes. We have a few presentations where we're going to go into more depth about the qualities of the antibodies coming out from OmnidAb. So that will be next week in PEGS and also in AET in San Diego in December. And we'll be continuing to talk about this as more data comes out. We have plans to publish a couple of papers on the topic and to answer your question a bit more specifically on developability, that's something that we've looked at pretty hard because obviously, if you invest as much as we have in engineering Transgene, you want to make sure that you've got a good one. We've got a lot of good data and it's growing, which will, I think, really, I would say, specify how developable these single-domain antibodies that come out of our platform are. Now when it comes to linking multiple single-domain antibodies together, is it multispecific, hooking them to different types of moieties and some of that slide that I presented with all the different variations, obviously, we haven't checked all of those. That's too much to do just for us. I mean we will be working with our partners on that aspect. But I think at the core of it, if you can have very high-quality human single-domain units, you're in a pretty good position to develop all of these kinds of molecules.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thanks Joe.

All right. So it looks like the next question is coming in from Puneet. Go ahead, Puneet and looks like you've unmuted your line. Go ahead and ask your question.

Yeah, thanks guys. Thanks for hosting this. Hopefully, you can hear me well.

Yes.

Okay. Great. So first one, maybe a high level on the partner side, and then I want to get into technology question with Bill and Bob and the team on that. So maybe just how do you expect the partner mix to sort of change given the funding situation that is sort of finally caught up with antibody discovery part of the sector, too? I mean you might recall I was asking pretty much every quarter about that. But finally, we're here. So now going forward, do you expect more collaboration, I mean more partnerships with larger pharma? And maybe just talk to us about that, how do you see the evolution in 2024? And I hear Kurt's comments on the revenue side, but I just want to make sure I'm conceptualizing it correctly.

Yes. Puneet. Thanks for the question and I'll comment on the partnering landscape and Todd can fill in as well. What's interesting the last two quarters, we've disclosed new partnerships with global big pharma companies. And that I think, is really a testament to the innovation work that this team and the team back in our labs are doing and also the visibility of the platform, the level of validation around the platform it's definitely attracting the big pharma players who understand not only the technologies we have now and the level of validation work we put into them, but also our intellectual and business and scientific medical commitment to continued innovation. I think that's what's attracting some of those bigger partners. But we are still signing up smaller partners as well. We announced a deal with GigaMune and Polaris Therapeutics this last quarter. So we are still seeing some of that, which is good. That's counterbalanced by some of the examples I gave earlier of Seeker. And I'll say our business development team has been as busy as ever. We have substantially expanded the team. Todd's done a great job of bringing in a top-notch, I'll say, science -- scientifically trained and a BD team that really leans into the science because that's something that our partners find of value. But Todd, maybe you can offer more color around migration and other things that have affected.

Yes. That sounds good. Yes, it's definitely -- there's been a lot of growth and as things have evolved, it might be helpful to talk to the sourcing of where these partner leads come in. Like Matt said, we've expanded the business development team significantly, and we spent a lot of time at conferences. Upcoming, there are some large ones antibodies, AET in San Diego. That's a great source of leads. Also, we have our marketing team that really is going out in major publications. We've set up a series of webinars that drive interest. And then as Matt already mentioned, one of our biggest sources of new deals is what we call scientific migration. People that start in one company, they get familiar with the technology there, and then they move on to another company and they say, hey, I want to keep working with OmniAb. That drives a lot of our current deals. Additionally, it really drives why we're working on -- one of the reasons why we really want to work in the academic space. Not only are the academics coming up with novel ideas and new things that are interesting, the cutting-edge ideas. But also they're training the next era of scientists. And these scientists go to other companies, and they are familiar with OmniAb and then that brings additional deal. So really, it's deals, deals beget deals and we're doing everything we can to keep pushing that forward. But it's -- in a lot of ways, it starts to feed on itself.

Got it. I appreciate that context. And then just on the type of projects that you're getting, obviously, some challenging projects were the early ones that you were receiving in the early days. How does that look now? Are you getting more sort of routine projects or a slew of projects? Just trying to understand sort of how does that -- how is it looking in terms of the -- for lack of better work, how challenging the target is versus situations where a company might be in funding -- is facing tougher challenges in the market and in the funding situation and they're offloading the work to you in order to be more efficient capital-wise. Maybe just give us a sense of the type of projects you're getting now versus over the last two years?

Yes. Puneet, great question, I'm glad you brought it up. In some ways, as we look across our portfolio, it's, at times, it's a bit of a misconception that our technology, our group of technologies, our suite of technologies are really suited only for difficult targets. Now there are a number of targets that are hard to track and that partners come to us for, but it's really not the case that it's really only highly conserved or only difficult targets that come our way. In fact, because of the diversity of species and diversity of platforms and other things, we often see partners who are approaching us for known targets, maybe ones that are -- we'll call it a household name type target in the community with which we're talking here, but they're looking for a new way to approach it, right, that has never been shown before. And our technology is quite amenable to that as well. But we've got a broad array of diverse targets across our growing portfolio of programs and that is driven not only by the innovation with the platform, but also the longer-term benefits partners can get not only scientifically but IP and other things as well. I don't know, Bill or Bob, you may want to add any color?

No, I think you got most of it. I mean there are those partners who have targets that are nonconventional. They're very novel. Sometimes they're [indiscernible] so we've invested a lot in our protein science capabilities so we can address those targets. So we're ready for those. We engage on those. We're happy to do those. But at the same time, we do have, as Matt mentioned, a lot of partners coming in with very well-validated targets, let's call it that. And in some cases, they're looking for a next-generation antibody. It might be something where they think they can really benefit from an OmnidAb format or even OmniTaur type of format. So they're looking for a different modality in a sense or in some cases, just want to leverage the chicken and get a new epitope that hasn't been seen before in most of the standard therapies or standard discoveries.

Got it. And last one, if I could ask, and thanks for hosting this, guys. Do you -- how do you see the growth of OmnidAb in these early stages? Can you compare and contrast to what you saw with OmniChicken when you launched it, and OmniRat? And then one for -- just for Bob, a quick question, Bruker has invested into a screening platform. Wondering if that changes anything in the market in your view? Thank you.

Yes. You can -- well -- yes, I'll let Bob take the Bruker one.

Yes. I think you're referring to the Bruker acquisition of PhenomeX and kind of the formerly Beacon -- Berkeley Lights Beacon platform. I mean I think that is platform we've known well. Actually, we even have partners who use that platform very well with OmniRat and have good successes with it. Our technology is one that -- I actually have been working out for a long time. It's one that I've kind of shepherded through from Stanford to Exela to now OmniAb. We have a strong IP portfolio, and we really do things in a very unique way because of that chip. I think we are very proud of kind of our throughput, both on specifically screening and the recovery. I think that's illustrated with the case study we talked about just the scale data we get out and that exploration here is really a foundational tool to empower not just standard Discover, which it's been in the workflows now for our partners now for the last few years. We're really looking forward as a large-scale data collection tool, and we hope to talk about more in the future.

Yes. Thanks, Bob, and I'll add to that as well, our -- the exploration instruments, the only exploration instruments that exist anywhere in the world are within our walls, if you will. And that I think, is something that our partners value and attracts them to us as well. To your first question, Puneet on kind of comparing and contrasting OmnidAb versus the -- I'll say the early days or initial launch of OmniChicken or the first launch of OmniRat, I think the difference now, one is just a level of validation around our platform. We are leveraging the heritage of OmniChicken, which now has a program in the clinic and others that are quickly approaching the clinic. There's a lot more visibility for not only our organization, but our technology is really driven by the hard work of these folks on the stage and a number of other folks back in the office and around the country. From a business development perspective, from a marketing perspective, from a scientific and exploratory research perspective, which is something we've leaned a lot more into with some key hires recently. I think there's a lot more visibility. And I'll say, getting the kind of feedback that was highlighted in Todd's section, really leading up to a launch and at the time of the launch, this is inbound feedback from partners. So that visibility is something that we really haven't had in the past when we've launched a new technology. So for me personally, that excites me about the impact it could have and the ramp-up. We've invested, as I said, substantially in our infrastructure over the last 1.5 years expanding our capacity for chicken-related programs, really in anticipation of this and other downstream innovations. And so we feel like we're well positioned, and we're excited about the initial feedback we're getting from partners.

Super, thank you guys.

Thanks, Puneet. All right. Looks like the next question is coming from Steve Willey. Go ahead and unmute your line, Steve and we will take your questions.

Yes. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Okay. Great. Thanks for doing this. I know Kurt, and I guess, Matt, you guys have spoke to some of the attrition that was seen, I guess, earlier in the year. And I think Kurt you mentioned that you're now starting to see some delays to some of your partner programs. So just wondering if you could comment a little bit on the delay side and I guess, where in the trajectory of clinical progress you're seeing these delays occurring?

Yes. I'll comment, and Kurt can fill in, Steve. A couple of things going on. One, as programs approach what we call that preclinical phase, which our hurdle for preclinical is quite high from an industry perspective. We only put something in that preclinical bucket if it is in pre-IND studies and the partner has confirmed an intent to file an IND and go into clinical trials. And I think that's where -- despite the fact that we started the year with the expectation of three to five new clinical starts this year, and by the end of Q3, we'd already reached five. So we've seen that progression. That said, the mix of programs of those five was different than we anticipated, one of which was a Roche program, exciting from a medical and scientific perspective, but because it was a grandfathered license doesn't carry economics with it. So the mix has been a little bit different. And as we get into the details of those 14 preclinical programs that are really pre-IND, and are approaching first clinical trials, there are, I'll say, subtle differences from -- and what we mean by delays in different programs, right, where maybe there's -- it's taking more time or they've decided to re adjust their manufacturing plans for the first clinical trial, that kind of thing. So we've seen some of that with some of the smaller players. It's always difficult to say what's exactly driven by macro factors or not, but we feel it's best to just be transparent about how we're seeing the pipeline develop. We're very excited about the growth in our programs that are approaching the clinic, but each one has a slightly different, I'll say, story behind it. We did see early in the year, as Kurt referenced, some therapy area realignment by a big pharma partner, and that can either be driven by macro factors or could potentially just be an internal factor as well. It's somewhat difficult to know exactly. So hopefully, that answers your question.

Yes, it does. And maybe just -- I guess, as you've kind of rolled out OmnidAb, I'm just kind of curious as to what are the applications from partners that you're seeing the most interest in right now? I guess, is it on the radiopharma side, I guess, as an alternative scaffold to peptides? I think the imaging part that Bill talked about is really interesting. Is it against highly conserved targets where obviously, OmniChicken helps? Is it against these multivalent targets like TNF receptor, family members that require this ligand multimerization or whatever to the agonized? Just curious as to kind of where the industry interest is right now on the single domain applications.

Yes. Difficult for us to say, specifically, obviously, for the programs that are in progress just for partner confidentiality reason. But obviously, this is opening new markets for us in many ways. As you say, radiopharma, blood-brain barrier, application for antibodies. But Bill and Todd, maybe you guys want to add color?

Yes, radiopharma definitely is one in certain situations where an ADC might not be as appropriate. We get a lot of interest in the single-domain antibodies for creating novel multi-specifics because that's really a unique thing you could do with them. Since they're so small you can tether two or three or four of them together in various ways. You can really sort of titrate the amount of focus you have on a particular target, so you could have three -- two or three single-domain antibodies for one target and then one against the other. So this modularity really is driving a lot of interest. So these new modalities. And I think that's -- and that can be applied to known targets and in some cases, well established targets that are then being combined with a novel target, for example. So all sorts of different combinations. But I think that most of what we've seen so far is it's driving on this modularity and multispecific applications.

Yes, there's not a lot I would add on that front. There's CAR-T usage and then delivering different particles or different proteins to different areas of the body. I would just add, though, there really has been a lot of partner interest over the last ever since we started making it clear that Omnidab was available. If you go to these scientific conferences, single-domain antibodies are all the rigs. A lot of people are talking about them. There's a lot of different areas of focus that they can be used in. And people really see the value in not only the combination of being able to generate an antibody, but in the ecosystem or I guess, in the host of a chicken. A joke I make with people at these conferences, is I say, I'll look at any law man in the face and say, we can make a way better antibody than you because really, it's just -- it's just a game changer that we can do the same format but in a different species. So it's really getting a lot of attention.

And we'll add that to my list of other BD analogies. I hadn't heard of, yes, but that's good.

Not sure your forward-looking statements…

And then maybe just one more, quick one. So I think you talked before about how partners have access to, I guess, a la carte menu on the app technology and -- so I guess as you roll out some of these new offerings, whether it's OmnidAb or OmniDeep, do these just show up on the menu of offerings that a partner can choose from? Or do you think that there's an opportunity to maybe kind of carve these out as separate entities, increase the economic ask and drive the average royalty rate across the portfolio higher over time?

Yes, Steve, great question, an important one. And as it was kind of generally referenced in my slides in my section of the presentation today, as we've continued to innovate around the platform, as we continue to launch new technologies, in general, that is, I'll say, increasing the value to our stakeholders, rightfully so. And that is something that we see as having the potential to continue as we launch new technologies. Each of our agreements are slightly different in some ways in terms of access to types of technologies or structure, if you will, of economics related to various technologies. But the spirit of your question is very much aligned to how we think about our innovations from a business perspective. So hopefully, that gives you some color. The reality is each agreement is slightly different, but that is part of our strategy when we think about launching new tech.

Very good. Thanks for doing this and thanks for taking the questions.

Yeah, thanks Steve.

Okay. It looks like our next question is coming in from Nishant Gandhi, and unmute your line. You should be able to ask your question, Nishan. Nishant, I'm still showing -- it looks like your line is still muted on your side. Let's see. Nishant, can you hear me? Going once. All right, looks like we're having some problems with that one. And that is our last question.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Oh, there we go. Nishant, yes, here we are.

We got you.

Sorry, some technical issue. This is Nishant. I'm on for Robin. So Matt, you showed interesting statistics that regarding antibodies that they're around 30% success rate, right, from Phase I to clinic. Now with your technology, you said you have more capabilities that you can optimize and develop better antibodies. Do you expect this tags to go up with your antibodies? Like do you think you can push this number higher? Like what are your thoughts on that?

Yes, great question, Nishant and one we talk about a lot. And those data that I presented, very fresh data presented two weeks ago by the Antibody Society, a real credit to Dr. Janice Reichert and her team at the Antibody Society, who do a meticulous level of monitoring of novel antibodies that enter the clinic. And specifically, that study was centered around antibodies that enter the clinic that are sponsored by commercial sponsors, right? So these highly relevant to our business. And it was interesting to see, as you look at those kind of overlapping time period bars, just the improvement that would imply based on those data that the industry is getting better at developing antibody-based medicines. It's been known for a long time that antibodies can be more targeted than small molecules and have a number of other scientific benefits, but it was really striking to see those numbers come out a couple of weeks ago. Now as you relate that to us, as we look at our portfolio, we have not seen, I'll say, clinical failures in our clinical portfolio. I say that noting that we are in a business in the pharmaceutical industry where things fail, of course. But it is interesting to say. But at this point, with 31 programs either in the clinic, commercial or in registration, our data set is probably still too early, but our success rates thus far have been great. And I think that is something that validates our technology with partners, attracts new partners. But it's probably too early or our data set might be a little too small right now to say how it relates to those new numbers that Janice or team from the Antibody Society reported, but we are excited to see that. We feel great about the work that our partners are doing, the substantial investment into clinical development to have now over 170 clinical trials that our partners are sponsoring that are based on antibody-based medicines. I think it says a lot about their conviction around the molecules that have come out of our tech.

Great. Along those similar lines, what percent of your programs do you see like advancing from preclinical to clinical? I mean do you have like an internal statistics like how many programs are like advanced kind of like percentage wise?

I don't believe we've disclosed that in the recent past, but it's in many ways, as you look at that preclinical slice, which again, is really more pre-IND, as I said earlier. We've found as we look at the programs that have advanced to the clinic and that are in preclinical that so far in our pipeline, it has not been a matter of if, but when in many ways, right? We've had very little attrition in that preclinical pre-IND slice of the portfolio pie. But there can be a lot of variability and time in that space, right, whether it's manufacturing or designing the first clinical trial or other elements that lead up to an IND. It's really just been more a matter of when and not if. And I think that says a lot about the technology and also the high bar that we place on putting things in that preclinical bucket.

Great. And then the last one. So from what I see from what I have heard, a lot of this molecule that you have in clinic, some of these molecules target like same target like LAG-3 you have a couple of them, you have like HLA-G x CD3 which are both developed using OmniRat. So what are the differentiation of this molecule? Like I mean, I believe they developed from same technology like what are the differentiations in this molecule, if you can provide some thoughts on that?

Yes. And I'll just speak generally about the business and the way we structure our licenses, and then Bill can add color there. Without talking about specific partners' antibodies to specific targets, I'll say we do have a number of partners who are pursuing the same targets, maybe for the same indications or maybe for different indications, both with OmniAb-derived antibodies, but those will be different OmniAb-derived antibodies for reasons that Bill can describe. And the way generally we structure our license agreements is that they are open to any target. Partners can pursue any target they want to pursue. The one exception to that can be in the ion channel and transporter space where the economics are far greater, as Kurt described on a per program basis. And that's because we're also, I'll say, committing to a target space linked to our assays and other things for those programs. But Bill, maybe you can offer some color on kind of how that plays out with different antibodies?

Yes. I mean one of the things that we were able to offer our partners in our animal systems is large diverse repertoires to any given target. And those repertoires are particular for that target for that partner, meaning that when you immunize an OmniChicken, you get a certain repertoire. You immunize six different OmniChickens, you get six different repertoires, right? And we're very good in our screening to go through those and invite the best of those. But even if another partner comes along with that same target, we'll set up, I mean, not that same cohort of chicken, it's a different cohort of OmniChickens, and we'll get six new repertoires and we'll mine those. And we found, especially as we incorporate more and more of these bio-informatic tools that allows us to look at a lot of sequences, that really, we don't get overlaps. So we're quite confident that the molecules that come out of a campaign, even if it's the same target, will not be the same sequences for two different partners. And we continue to look at this and monitor it because obviously, as we do more and more programs, the chances go up, but we still are not really worried about that. I don't know, Bob, maybe you want to add on that?

Yes. I think actually, we can say that we can -- we ensure with our bio-informatic that we do not give different sequences to two drug partners. So all the IP is always going to be separate. And it's just -- I think it's maybe the appreciation of the repertoire space. It's like 10 to the -- like it's tremendously large. So I think just imagining that it's just statistically unlikely, if not possible, for them to be overlapped. And I think also the differentiation is really driven by our partners, right? They sometimes give different target product profiles to us that we kind of mash in-tune. So it's going to be different as our partners provide their needs.

Very good. Thanks for the color and thanks for the call. It was very informative.

Okay. Thank you, Nishant. Yes, thanks. So Kurt tells me, we have no further questions -- of Kurt's many talents, I've learned that he also can be a conference call operator. So great job, Kurt. But anyway, I want to thank all of you for joining. Thanks for the engagement and questions. Really appreciate investor support and input. Kurt and I will be out on the road. We'll be back in New York City next week at the Stifel Conference as well as the Craig-Hallum Capital Conference. So we'll be out on the road. And I just want to finish the program by thanking my colleagues for their presentations today and their input, thanking our team back in the office and also thanking our hosts here at the NASDAQ Entrepreneurial Center in San Francisco for furnishing this great space for the event. So thank you all again, and have a great day.