N² 11 | Volume 11 | 2012 | 10.00 Ì | ISSN 1618-8276 | A 60711 |
European Biotechnology News Science & Industry
CENTRAL EUROPE
German Chancellor Angela Merkel opens 53m biorefinery NORTHERN EUROPE
Norway’s Aqua Gen maps salmon genome to improve aquaculture WESTERN EUROPE
T P R E C EE EX
FR
French consortium builds first EU cell therapeutics facility SPECIAL
Bio-Europe in Hamburg Partnering & Deals SOUTHERN EUROPE
:_\d`ZXc ^`Xekj `eZ_ `ekf k_\ gfjk$g\kifc \iX
New Italian framework for pushing clinical trails in biotech EASTERN EUROPE
GENNET and BGI Europe team up to foster genomic screening SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Targeting stathmin prevents neurodegeneration in ALS
GE Healthcare Life Sciences Now part of GE Healthcare
Unlimited growth potential
Use one convenient bioreactor platform from process development to production. Don’t let different vessel forms, materials, and control systems impede your growth. Xcellerex XDR™ bioreactors simplify process scale-up and scale-down, providing a highly engineered, well-characterized product platform. Our service and support make scalability even easier. Spend your time growing cells — and outgrowing the competition.
www.gelifesciences.com/xcellerex
E: webinquiry@xcellerex.com P: 508.480.XCEL(9235) or 1.866.XCELLEREX
GE, imagination at work and GE monogram are trademarks of General Electric Company. Xcellerex is a registered trademark of Xcellerex, Inc. XDR is a trademark of Xcellerex, Inc. © 2012 General Electric Company — All rights reserved. First published September 2012.
N –º 11 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
INTRO
FREE EXCERPT
EDITORIAL
Partnering for innovative healthcare solutions Nigel Sheail, Head of Global Business Development & Licensing, Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen
P
Nigel Sheail, has been a member of the Bayer HealthCare Executive Committee and Head of Global Business Development & Licensing since November of 2011. The biologist (BSc, University of Edinburgh) began his professional career in the pharmaceuticals industry in 1990 at GlaxoSmithKline, before transferring to F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. in 1993. There he held a variety of positions with increasing responsibility in both the firm’s finance and research organisations. Prior to joining Bayer HealthCare, Sheail was Head of Corporate Mergers & Acquisitions and Head of Global Pharma Licensing at F.HoffmannLa Roche Ltd. in Basel.
artnering and even open innovation is becoming increasingly important for our industry in a world where health systems are undergoing profound transformations. As the global population has grown above seven billion, emerging markets have become major markets. Mature markets around the world are aging. These factors and others are giving rise to greater medical need at a time when many health systems are reaching their financial limits. One key to addressing these challenges is innovation – both internal and external. In this context, partnering plays an important role. At Bayer HealthCare, we are committed to research & development in areas with high medical needs like oncology, cardiology, gynecological therapies, hematology and ophthalmology. Our partnering activities are also addressing both regional and local business needs, and we are constantly looking for new collaborations with academia, pharma and companies in the biotechnology field across all phases of the value chain to combine the innovative science of our partners with our drug discovery activities, our development experience and our marketing expertise worldwide. Today, we are well-positioned, with a strong portfolio of innovative products and an outstanding pipeline of new developments. However, to add more value for physicians and patients, our company is seeking to think beyond the scope of individual products and increasingly develop healthcare solutions. In the cardiovascular area, for example, such solutions could start with prevention, encompass diagnosis and treatment where disease does occur, and also protect against recurrence – a truly comprehensive approach to heart health. Following the idea of developing innovative solutions, as well as individual products, our business development organisation brings together colleagues
from Pharmaceuticals, Consumer Care, Medical Care, and Animal Health divisions. One of the unexpected benefits of the tight financing environment over the last few years is that companies are forced to collaborate early on in the drug-discovery and development process. This may allow the next generation of molecules to benefit from ‘collaborative advantages’ – bringing together the science and experience of organizations for mutual benefit, and ultimately increasing the chance of developing new therapies that will have an impact. These days, more than 80% of Bayer HealthCare meetings at partnering conferences deal with pre-clinical opportunities. Our company is open to all types of collaborations, but prefers structures that allow both partners a seat at the table and real input to ensure the best decisions are made for the programs. We want to work with strong partners that thrive independently, and ideally will bring multiple opportunities to the table. We also recognize the need to meet the needs of investors who will need successful exits if they are to have confidence to reinvest in healthcare innovation. The growing importance of collaborations in our industry is also nicely reflected by the demand for, and increasing number of, partnering events worldwide. Events like the upcoming Bio-Europe offer excellent opportunities, both to catch up with companies we already know and to meet new companies or academic institutions at an early stage of their development.
3
4
N –º 11 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
CIRCUL ATION
FREE EXCERPT
European Biotechnology News is published in co-operation with the following organisations: European Biotechnology
CMYK
NET WORK
Europe: european-biotechnology.net
Blue: 100/15/0/35 Orange: 0/75/90/0
Germany: biodeutschland.org
Switzerland: swissbiotech.org
Council of European BioRegions
Europe: cebr.net
Europe: ebe-biopharma.org
Europe: europabio.org
Norway: biotekforum.no
Ireland: ibec.ie/ibia
Finland: finbio.net
Denmark: danskbiotek.dk
Sweden: swedenbio.com
The Netherlands: niaba.nl
Belgium: bio.be
Spain: asebio.com
France: france-biotech.org
Italy: assobiotec.it
Hungary: hungarianbiotech.org
EuroBiotechNews covers the biotechnology sector of the current 27 EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. If you would like to subscribe, please refer to Portugal: www.apbio.pt
www.eurobiotechnews.eu
N –º 11 | Volume 11 | 2012
5
Euro|Biotech|News
CONTENTS
FREE EXCERPT
INSIGHT
COVER STORY
Heard in Brussels; EU agencies don’t adequately manage conflicts of interest 10 Study compares 19 biotech clusters
12
EMA says small biotechs resist asking for advice; Market for mAbs growing strong; IP Flash
14
REGULATORY AFFAIRS Breaking news from the EMA
15
Update on clinical trials
16
ECONOMIC Focus on newsflow and dividends
17
Stock markets
18
PERSPECTIVES Reverse merger – Gentrix marries X-Pol Biotech with Sygnis
22
Western Europe UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium 24
Eastern Europe Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic
Spurred by opportunities in the booming market for sustainable chemicals, major industry players are closing deal after deal to build new production facilities across the globe. After years of planning and testing, biofermenters able to produce thousands of tonnes of key chemical building blocks annually are gearing up to go online. A first biobased key substance to be produced en masse is succinic acid, a precursor compound that can be used to make a wide range of other materials.
SERVICES
SPECIAL
Northern Europe Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland 20
Southern Europe Italy, Spain
6
44
REGIONAL NEWS
Central Europe Germany, Austria, Switzerland
Replacing petrochemicals with biobased alternatives
26
28
BIO-Europe 2012
Partners & Associations
4
Imprint
5
Partnering at its best
31
Partnering is still key to success
32
Real cooperation at an early stage
34
The world is on our doorstep
36
Contract manufacturing – Tailored production
40
Company index
48
Handling intellectual property in high-tech start-ups
42
Events What’s on in Nov.-Dec. 2012
49
Focus on T cell therapies
47
Encore
50
Biopeople News from Epigenomics, Heptares Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Anagnostics, Cytos Biotechnology, and the European Parliament 46
Imprint European Biotechnology News is published monthly by: BIOCOM AG, Lützowstr. 33–36, D-10785 Berlin, Germany, Tel.: +49-30-264921-0, Fax: +49-30-264921-11, E-Mail: service@eurobiotechnews. eu; Internet: www.eurobiotechnews.eu, Publisher: Andreas Mietzsch, Editorial Team: Thomas Gabrielczyk (Managing Editor), Derrick Williams (Co-editor), Dr. Patrick Dieckhoff, Dr. Bernd Kaltwaßer, Dr. Martin Laqua; Advertising: Oliver Schnell, +49-30-2649-2145, Advertising USA: Avani Media, Inc. , Leslie Hallanan, Tel.: +1-415-331-2150 , Fax: +1-415-289-0402, E-Mail: leslie@avanimedia.com; Distribution: Angelika Werner, +49-30-2649-2140; Printed at: Druckhaus Humburg, Bremen; Graphic Design: Michaela Reblin. European Biotechnology Science & Industry News is only regularly available through subscription at BIOCOM AG. Annual subscription fees: € 100.00, Students € 50.00 (subject to proof of enrolment). Prices include VAT, postage & packaging. Ordered subscriptions can be cancelled within 2 weeks directly at BIOCOM AG. The subscription is initially valid for one year. Subscriptions will be renewed automatically for one more year, respectively, unless they are cancelled at least 6 weeks before the date of expiry. Failures of delivery which BIOCOM AG is not responsible for do not entitle the subscriber to delivery or reimbursement of pre-paid fees. Seat of court is Berlin, Germany. As regards contents: individually named articles are published within the sole responsibility of their respective authors. All material published is protected by copyright. No article or part thereof may be reproduced in any way or processed, copied and proliferated by electronic means without the prior written consent of the publisher. Cover Photo: © BASF SE. Supplement: BIOCOM AG ® BIOCOM is a registered trademark of BIOCOM AG, Berlin, Germany.
10
N –º 11 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
INSIGHT EUROPE
Heard in Brussels When scientists have to strike at their own Brussels – We all read with dismay – but not a huge amount of surprise – the October paper from French researchers led by Gilles-Eric Séralini on the two-year rat-feeding study looking at the effects of glyphosate-treated GM maize. It‘s almost boring these days when new headlines emerge saying we're all going to DIE HORRIBLY from eating GM food. This is despite a conspicuous lack of people DYING HORRIBLY from anything other than the usual human-inspired causes, which are not worthy of comment or action because they are 100% ‘natural’. In the bad old days, scientists, companies and politicians would have been looking the other way when the report was published, and before long the headline would have been accepted as fact. Any response would have been far too late and far too weak to look like anything other than an evil corporate cover-up. This time, however, I was pleasantly surprised. As they raced to hit deadlines, I heard journalists adding that an awful lot of people disagreed with the results, and that the science was actually a bit suspect – not enough animals, dodgy design, cancer-prone rats and less maths than my budget planning for shoes. They also added, in pensive tones, that the researcher was a longtime opponent of GM crops, and this might mean he isn‘t exactly unbiased. Even more refreshing was the rapid response from researchers and politicians. The latter got it badly wrong when the GM farce first hit the headlines. But then the French research community itself bit back quickly. The country‘s national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies signed a statement that not only are the conclusions unsupported by the presented data, but that the paper spreads fear in the public.
Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network
This was rapidly backed up by the European Food Safety Authority, which published a statement pointing out that the author had been invited to supply the evidence missing from the paper, but had obviously ”forgotten” to post it before their deadline. The full review from the EFSA contained the damning phrase “the study has unclear objectives and is inadequately reported in the publication, with many key details of the design, conduct and analysis being omitted. Without such details it is impossible to give weight to the results.” Dark words for any scientist to hear, and I’ll bet the peer review process in Food and Chemical Toxicology is now undergoing an overhaul. Bravo, I say. The scientific community needs to manage its scientists better. It has been too easy for too long to grab headlines with poor but sensationalist science, and the price is paid by everybody. When science is bad, it should be the scientists who point it out and remind their own community and the rest of the world that to be science, it has to be scientific – you don’t start from the result, and you always show the maths. Obviously, that doesn’t apply to shoes.
FREE EXCERPT
ECA
Cleaning house Luxembourg – The European Agencies responsible for drug approval (EMA), food safety (EFSA), safety of chemicals (ECHA) and aviation (EASA) are not adequately managing conflict of interest situations, says a new report tabled by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The study, released in October, appears to confirm concerns expressed by MEPs who commissioned it in 2011. Last spring, they postponed approval of the 2010 accounts from the EMA and the EFSA due to doubts over the independence of staff there (see EuroBiotechNews 6/2012). The ECA, however, also stressed that of the four agencies, the EMA and the EFSA ”have developed the most advanced policies and procedures for declaring, assessing and managing the conflict of interest.” Igors Ludboržs, who headed the assessment, said that “after examining the situation at the agencies, we (the ECA) have drawn up a list of general and specific recommendations which – if properly implemented – might bring significant improvements in the management of conflict of interest situations, not only in the selected agencies, but in all EU institutions and decentralised bodies.” The ECA inter alia recommends: – establishing clear and objective criteria for the assessment of declaration of interests and applying them, – introducing gifts and invitation policies (EMA, EASA, ECHA), – developing clear, transparent and consistent breach of trust policies, and – screening candidates for conflict of interest before their appointment (EMA, EASA, ECHA). ”We will continue to rigorously implement our new policy on independence and scientific decision-making processes,and the related implementing rules, which came into force in July,” said EFSA head Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle. The EMA said it's already addressed most of the recommendations. At the end of October, the European Parliament confirmed its 2010 accounts.
N –º 11 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
INSIGHT EUROPE
News Inconclusive GMO study Parma/Paris – Europe’s food watchdog EFSA has said a long-term ratfeeding study published by Séralini et al. has “inadequate design, analysis and reporting for safety assessment”. The study (see EuroBiotechNews 10/2012), which was accompanied by the release of a GM-sceptic book and film by the authors, claimed GM maize NK603 has a negative impact on health. Without access to the raw data, those conclusions can’t be verified or interpreted. Séralini, however, has rejected requests to release that data to the scientific community (see p. 10). At the end of October, the French national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies jointly dismissed the study as “a scientific non-event” and flawed science. “Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies, which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view,“ stressed the researchers. Some days before, the French Haut conseil des biotechnologies (HCB) said the data presented by Séralini didn’t demonstrate any negative effects caused by NK603 or the herbicide glyphosate.
Dalli steps down Brussels – EU Health Commissioner John Dalli resigned from his post in October after an anti-fraud investigation connected him to an attempt to influence EU tobacco legislation. Although the report didn’t find any conclusive evidence of the Commissioner’s direct participation in the scandal, Dalli decided to step down. VP Maros Sefcovic will take over his post on an interim basis.
FREE EXCERPT
CLUSTER STUDY
Regional impact of life sciences Basel – A brand-new study conducted by the market research institute BAK Basel Economics AG has taken a look at the role the life sciences play in 19 selected metropolitan or regional clusters in Europe, the US and Asia. The difference between the “Life Sciences Report 2011/2012” and other analyses is that its focus is less on absolute employment numbers, patents or R&D expenditure created by the clusters than on their relative contributions to their respective economies. Viewing the field from this special angle, the study finds that nowhere is the life science industry as important to the local economy as it is to the Basel region and its 470,000 inhabitants. There, the densely-clustered agrochemical, pharmaceutical and medtech industry shares of gross domestic product (GDP) hit about 18% between 2000 and 2010. With the exception of Singapore (around 5%), contributions from the life sciences industries to GDP in most areas is generally in the 1-3% range, even in other cheek-and-jowl clusters like Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, Shanghai, London and New York. A similar picture emerges when it comes to life sciences contributions to total employment. While Shanghai, New Jersey, New York, and Southern California lead the pack in absolute numbers, Basel (7.8%) outperforms
them in relative terms (see table), and tops the chart when it comes to share of R&D expenditure in GDP (1. Basel: 9.8%, 2. Boston: 8.9%, 3. Cambridge/UK: 8.1%). The study’s aim was not only to analyse established clusters, but also to identify emerging ones. A comparision of annual growth rates (“gross value added”, GVA) from 1995-2000 and from 2000-2010 revealed that Shanghai (GVA: 14%), Cambridge (13%) and the Geneva Region (12%) currently perform better than they did before the turn of the millennium. Basel is growing constantly at about 10% annually. The large US clusters and Singapore built critical mass with peak growth rates of 15%20% in the 1990s, and have only averaged annual growth rates of about 7% during the last decade. Milan, Paris and Munich are currently showing a decrease in GVA, according to the analysis. When it comes to analysing productivity, the study remains somewhat vague. In order to correct for the size of a region, it looks at the number of life sciences patents filed in that region in relation to its total population. A more informative number would have been to compare it to the number of life science researchers who work there.This may be a contributing factor to its claim that Basel is outperforming top US clusters.
Key figures of metropolitan life sciences areas:1 patents in agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and medtech as of 2009, 2average 2000-2010 (rounded), 3as of 2010 Patents1 per inhabitant
Share of Life Sciences in GDP2
Share of expenditure in GDP3
91,700 (0.8%)
N.A.
1.5%
N.A.
New Jersey
79,500 (2.0%)
80
3.5%
5.4%
New York
55,700 (0.7%)
30
3%
1.5%
Southern California
51,900 (0.7%)
50
1%
4.8%
Paris
36,600 (0.7%)
40
1%
3%
Milan
33,600 (1.6%)
30
0.5%
1.1%
SF Bay Area
30,000 (1.4%)
180
2%
4.8%
Basel Region
27,600 (7.8%)
280
18%
9.8%
Boston
23,400 (0.8%)
190
1.5%
8.9%
Singapore
22,000 (0.7%)
N.A.
5%
N.A.
Cluster
Staff (Share of Employment)
Shanghai
© derived from BAKBASEL
12
48
N –º 11 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
COMPANY INDE X ? EurosBioTechsNews What are you planning to examine in the clinical trial, and what’s your timeline? REINKE:
!
Our Treg approach will be tested in two studies. First, by a EU consortium within the “One Study“ progamme (www.onestudy. org), which is set to start patient enrolment next autumn. 16 transplant recipients each in Berlin, Regensburg and Oxford respectively will receive a kidney from living donors who have no standard suppression. Oxford and Regensburg will use similar expansion protocols. Second, a trial sponsored by t-cell Europe will be conducted with recipients of kidneys from deceased donors. The doseescalation study is designed to demonstrate safety and indirect (biomarker-based) efficacy, and will include initial T-cell depletion. Starting next autumn, we will recruit 16 patients over a year who will have a one-year follow-up. Here we will recheck some of the results we got from preclinical testing. For 4SC AG (GER) ………………………………………… 17 Ablynx NV (B) …………………………………… 16, 25 Actelion Ltd (CH) ……………………………………… 16 Active Biotech (S) ……………………………………… 21 Adenovir Pharma AB (S) ……………………………… 16 Affimed Therapeutics AG (GER) ……………………… 22 Agennix AG (GER/USA) ……………………………… 31 AiCuris GmbH & Co KG (GER) ………………………… 22 Altona Diagnostic Technologies GmbH (GER) ……… 36 Amakem NV (B) ……………………………………… 16 Anagnostics Bioanalysis GmbH (A) …………………… 46 APIM Therapeutics AS (N) …………………………… 20 Aqua Gen AS (N) ……………………………………… 21 BAK Basel Economics AG (CH) ……………………… 12 BASF SE (GER) ………………………………………… 6 Bayer Healthcare AG (GER) ………………………… 3, 19 Berlin Partner GmbH (GER) …………………………… 25 BGI Europe (DK) ……………………………………… 28 BIO.NRW (GER) ………………………………………… 11 Bioamber Inc. (USA) …………………………………… 8 BIOCOM AG …………………………………………… 30 Biom’Up (F) …………………………………………… 25 Bionamics GmbH (GER) ……………………………… 38 Biotest AG (GER) ……………………………………… 38 Biotie Therapies Corp. (FIN)…………………………… 46 BioWin - The Health Cluster of Wallonia (B) ………… 23 Boehringer Ingelheim (GER) …………………… 25, 46 Burrill & Company (USA) ………………………… 31, 32 BWG Holding (S) ……………………………………… 16 Caixa Capital Biomed (E) ……………………………… 26 Caja Navarra (E)………………………………………… 26 Campbell Alliance (USA) ……………………………… 32 Cedrus Therapeutics Inc. (USA) ……………………… 38 Celogos (F) …………………………………………… 24 Chemotargets S.L. (E) ………………………………… 26 Clean Cells SA (F) ……………………………………… 24 Cobra Biologics (GB)…………………………………… 43 Cresces GmbH (GER) ………………………………… 36 Curacyte AG (GER) …………………………………… 31 Cytos AG (CH) ………………………………………… 46 DASGIP GmbH (GER) ………………………………… 17 Devgen (B)……………………………………………… 17
FREE EXCERPT
instance, we found that FoxP3+-Tregs can be given under calci neurin inhibition, which contrasts with the established idea that patients need IL-2 for survival. Second, we will have to recheck whether our Tregs are still functional – as they were in preclinical tests – after 2-3 weeks of expansion from one million to 100 million cells. t-cell Europe’s focus in this trial is on deceased donors, because 70% of available kidneys are allocated by Eurotransplant. We expect the results from both studies in 2015.
? EurosBioTechsNews What market potential do you see for your approach in kidney transplantation?
itself after just two years. We are already in talks over both an adequate reimbursement price and on quality-of-life parameters with healthcare insurance companies to create acceptance for our approach. That may be a plus if it comes to licensing. ULBRICH:
!
Conservative estimates say that calculating at 40,000 per treatment, the field has a 300m annual potential … REINKE:
!
We are not so starry-eyed as to believe we could fully substitute immunosuppressive therapy, which costs directly and indirectly 30,000 annually per patient. But even if it reduces the need for immunosuppressives by only 50%, our approach would pay for
We have to progress step-by-step – to see if patients benefit from our treatment in the clinic. Only then will we switch to the allogenic setting, because it is more practical and cost-effective. We believe regulatory authorities are changing their minds about biological mixtures like mAbs or cell therapies if they do the job. More and more physicians accept that complex biological processes can’t be addressed with one drug affecting one pathway.
Diamyd Medical AB (S) ………………………………… 20 Dievini Hopp Biotech Holding GmbH (GER) ………… 44 Digna Biotech S.L. (E) ………………………………… 26 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (IND) …………………… 25 DSM (NL) ……………………………………………… 6 EBD Group (GER) ……………………………………… 32 ecoplus (A) ……………………………………………… 45 Eisenführ, Speiser und Partner (GER) ………………… 42 Epigenomics AG (GER) ………………………………… 46 Epomedics GmbH (GER) ……………………………… 38 Eppendorf AG (GER) …………………………………… 36 Ethical Oncology Science S.p.A. (I) …………………… 26 European Biotechnology Network (B) ……………… 30 European ScreeningPort GmbH (GER) ……………… 38 EuroTransBio (ETB), Wallonia (B) …………………… 33 Evotec AG (GER) ………………………………… 36, 38 ForMune (E) …………………………………………… 26 Frost & Sullivan (GB) …………………………………… 14 Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies (GB) …………… 9, 25 Gedeon Richter Ltd. (HUN) …………………………… 40 Genetrix Group (E) …………………………………… 44 Genmab A/S (DK) ……………………………………… 17 Genmedica Therapeutics S.L. (E) …………………… 26 GENNET (CZ)…………………………………………… 28 Genticel S.A. (F) ……………………………………… 16 GPC Biotech AG (GER) ………………………………… 31 Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte (GER) ……… 14 Heptares Therapeutics (GB) ………………………… 46 High-Tech Gründerfonds Manag. (GER) ………… 21, 40 Hospira One 2 One (USA) …………………………… 41 HRA Pharma (F) ……………………………………… 24 Inveready Technologie Investment Group (E) ……… 26 Kempen & Co (NL) …………………………………… 17 Länsfösäkringar Skane (S) …………………………… 16 Les Laboratoires Servier S.A. (F) ……………………… 26 LFB Biotechnologies SA (F) …………………………… 24 Life Technologies Corp. (USA) ………………………… 7 LISA Vienna Region (A) ………………………………… 37 Luminex Corp. (USA) ………………………………… 24 Medeon Pharmaceuticals GmbH (GER) ……………… 38 MediGate GmbH (GER) ……………………………… 38 Merck & Co. Inc (USA) ……………………… 22, 25, 46
Merck Serono (CH) …………………………………… 25 Metasbio (E) …………………………………………… 26 Micromet AG (GER/USA) ……………………………… 46 Monsanto (USA) ……………………………………… 14 MorphoSys AG (GER) ………………………………… 17 Myriant Inc. (USA) ……………………………………… 8 Norgenta GmbH (GER) …………………………… 35, 36 Novacyt SA (F) ………………………………………… 19 Novartis AG (CH) ……………………………………… 25 Novo Nordisk A/S (DK)………………………………… 50 Octoplus (NL) …………………………………… 17, 25 Orexo AB (S) …………………………………………… 20 Photocure ASA (N) …………………………………… 20 Piramal Healthcare UK Ltd. …………………………… 25 Plexpress (FIN) ………………………………………… 20 POCDIA GmbH (GER) ………………………………… 36 ProBioGen AG (GER) ………………………………… 13 PTT Global Chemical (TH) …………………………… 8 PULS AB (S) …………………………………………… 16 PURAC NV (NL) ………………………………………… 6 Qiagen NV (NL/GER) …………………………… 19, 44 RCC Laboratoris Ltd. (IND) …………………………… 22 Reed Exhibitions Japan Ltd (JP) …………………… CP3 Reverdia (NL) …………………………………………… 6 Richter-Helm BioLogics GmbH (GER) ………… 6, 39, 40 Roche Diagnostics GmbH (GER) …………………… CP4 SALANS LLP (GER) ……………………………… 27, 34 Sanofi SA (F) …………………………………………… 16 SOM Biotech SL (E) …………………………………… 26 Sparbanksstiftelsen Skanes Riskkapitis (S) …………… 16 Succinity GmbH (GER) ………………………………… 6 SYGNIS Pharma AG (GER) …………………………… 44 t-cell Europe GmbH (GER) …………………………… 47 Thrombogenics NV (B) ………………………………… 17 UCB S.A. (B) …………………………………………… 16 Uhde GmbH (GER) …………………………………… 8 Uninvest (E) …………………………………………… 26 Virusure GmbH (A) …………………………………… 22 Wilex AG (GER) …………………………………16, 18, 31 X-Pol Biotech (E) ……………………………………… 44 Xcellerex (USA) ……………………………………… CP2 Zeltia-Group (E) ……………………………………… 18
VOLK:
!
Roche X-tremeGENE Transfection Reagents
Now proven in 275 cell types Efficiently transfect a broad spectrum of cells including difficult cells Generate physiologically relevant results with low cytotoxic reagents Obtain top-level protein yields Quickly establish your transfection protocols
Free sample and protocols at www.x-tremegene.roche.com
For life science research only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.
Roche Diagnostics GmbH Sandhofer StraĂ&#x;e 116 68305 Mannheim, Germany
X-TREMEGENE is a trademark of Roche.
Š 2012 Roche Diagnostics. All rights reserved.