10 Biotechs in Stem Cells that Could Profit Under the Democrats 16 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Editor's note: This article was corrected on June 1.
Democrats and stem cells -- a budding romance. Pundits opine that this will be the year of the Democrats, at least as far as Congress is concerned. Conventional wisdom holds that pharmaceutical stocks suffer under the Democrats due to concerns over pricing and liberal drug importation.
However, one subset that may do well under the Democrats is biotechnology companies that deal with stem cells. This is based on the rationale that Democrats may be more favorably inclined to this line of therapy than Republicans since they are not as opposed to stem cells.
Stem cells are progenitor cells that, at least in theory, can differentiate into any cell type in the body. This ability to become whatever is needed is an invaluable resource where regeneration of the original tissue or organ is important. Examples include intra-articular tissues for osteoarthritis, heart muscles for heart failure or heart attacks, and neural tissues for various neurological disorders including Parkinsons Disease.
There are two sources of stem cells: adults and embryos. There are several differences between adult stem cells [ASC] and embryonic stem cells [ESC]. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotential, meaning that they can differentiate into any cell type. This makes them an excellent starting point, but can lead to problems if cells differentiate into unwanted tissue. For example, stem cells implanted into the brain of an Alzheimers patient could differentiate into muscle or bone instead of neural tissue (giving new meaning to the phrase bone head or muscle head, but I digress). However, unregulated and uncontrolled proliferation of embryonic stem cells could lead to cancer--something that concerns the FDA and clinicians alike.
In contrast, adult stem cells are mutlipotential, differentiating along their lines of origin. So neural ASCs would only form neural tissue, though not always the exact neural tissue required. Another difference is that ASCs, unlike ESCs, cannot proliferate for long periods outside the body without differentiating. This limits manufacturing options for ASC, but not for ESC.
The table below lists the status of some ASC companies:
Aladgaen, not listed above, is an ASC company in the clinic, and is about to file an IPO. I was not able to obtain sufficient information on it - hence it is not listed above.
Some companies involved in ESC research include:
Of the companies mentioned above, Osiris (OSIR) is the most advanced, with marketed products, a deal with Genzyme (GENZ), a large grant from the Department of Defense for acute radiation sickness, and a marketing deal for osteocel. It has done better than most other stem cell companies that have lost up to 70% of their value over the past year. Still, Zacks rates it a hold.
Before buying any company, one must do one's own due diligence. Important factors to take into account include ASC versus ESC, technology, cash reserves, burn rate, stage of development, and management. Pay particular notice to management - a bad management team can destroy a good product. It is particularly important in this industry, so look at what the management has done in the past and how successful they were at it before they became senior management at the company you're considering. My picks to consider seriously would include OSIR and ASTM.
Disclosure: I have consulted for Athersys in the past. In order to avoid a conflict of Interest I have not included it in my picks to consider seriously.
Related Articles
|

























This article has 16 comments:
Giving billions to companies for science is the same as flushing taxes down the toilet.
I have a Phd in life sciences.
However, the research on the companies mentioned is an absolute disgrace. It has many pertinent errors- for instance Bioheart´s Myocell is a Phase III development. Osiris sold Osteocell several weeks ago. Cytori markets their Celution system in Europe already in the PCS market.
Would one trust the recommendation accordingly?
Thats a rhetoric question really.
"The first thing to remember, is that our cells are “committed” neural precursors. That is, they are already programmed by nature to “turn into” the cells of the central nervous system, and ONLY the central nervous system. This is a crucial distinction. The “turning into” process, we call differentiation. And the way we characterize this process is to say that we have completely “controlled” differentiation. The cells only, and always, become what we want them to become. We have a completely controlled differentiation, and we have never seen any tumors in any of the studies we have conducted with the cells; both in chemically immune suppressed animals or in genetically bred immune suppressed animals, nor in healthy animals".
As you can see, this blog has Neuralstem catagorized incorrectly.
BTW, Neuralstem expects to file an IND to treat ALS this fall.
From this perspective it is vital that if you write a article and want to give pointers to your readers on where to do DD, those pointers should at least be correct.-which they certainly are NOT.
Since I have done DD on all (and a few more) I can tell that Osir is a good pick. They actually sold Osteocell to get the funds in order to have a good chance in reaching the market with their Crohns and GvHD therapies with Prochymal.
ASTM though is laying off 27 (1/3 of workforce) employees to strech their money and face delisting with all consequences for access to capital markets.
There is now actually just one outfit left that makes meaningfull revenues in 2008 and certainly 2009 & beyond. Is adding employees to their work force and as only stemcell company has strong partners.
Did your own DD get that far to tell us which company that is?
They are a "Physcological Trade"
For a brief minute the masses would believe that these stocks would be the proper play amid the election of a Democratic President.
The rally would be swift and then falter, the stocks mentioned above would rally on cursory research, but would eventually and most probably fall lower than where they were previous to their rally.
Then and only then should any of these stocks be judged and strictly on their merits if any-
On May 27 07:01 AM CLH wrote:
> These companies will not do well under either party. After many years
> absolutly no new therapys have been discovered using stem cells.
> The fact that democrates have a religious belief in stem cells will
> not help. The government can't help science. If something comes out
> of this science, it will be from private labs.
>
> Giving billions to companies for science is the same as flushing
> taxes down the toilet.
>
> I have a Phd in life sciences.
Who abd what would this be about?
can anyone tell me?
On Jan 19 04:40 AM lesamis wrote:
> "One technology is believed to treat a variety of disease"; "It's
> the biggest breakthrough (in this technology) in a decade"; "Many
> view the creation of (these) cells as regenerative medicine"; "The
> world-changing breakthrough company alliance is valued at potentially
> $1 billion- a way to cure, rebuild, and repair the human body" using
> shots and pills- "the reprogrammed cells seemed capable of becoming
> any of the 200-plus cells tyes in the human body" ".........(company)"
> said Thursday it has signed patent-liscensing agreemets with ...(research)...."
>
>
> Who abd what would this be about?
> can anyone tell me?
It sounds to me like a reference to Osiris (OSIR) and their product called Prochymal. Osiris and Genzyme signed a collaborative agreement for over a billion dollars. And, Prochymal is a breakthrough technology.
plenty of cash, no debt and very likely to become profitable from this quarter on (june-august, 2009).
check it out.