2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
18 päivää sitten
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
·2 t sittenThe GEN article about Circio and TraffikGene confirms, in my opinion, the most important point in the case right now: It's about delivery. GEN describes the collaboration as a combination of Circio's circVec platform and TraffikGene's peptide-amphiphile delivery system, with the goal of more targeted, efficient, and long-lasting non-viral delivery to specific cell and tissue types. That is strategically important. The AAV track shows how circVec can improve classical gene therapy through higher expression and possible dose-sparing. The Acuitas track tests LNP delivery and in vivo CAR-T. The TraffikGene track adds a third route: peptide-based non-viral delivery. This means that Circio does not lock the technology to one delivery platform. They are testing whether circVec can work across multiple delivery systems. This is exactly what can increase the platform's value. The GEN article also points out that the collaboration will proceed step-by-step: first in vitro screening, then optimization of formulations, and finally in vivo testing in mice to assess expression kinetics, biodistribution, and delivery efficacy. In other words: this is still early research, not clinical or commercial validation. But it is a concrete test plan, and it directly addresses one of the biggest bottlenecks in gene and cell therapy. For me, the main point is simple: The engine is circVec. But the value increases significantly if the engine can be placed in multiple vehicles. AAV. LNP. Peptide-based non-viral delivery. This is what Circio is now building — step by step.
·2 t sittenExtremely important weeks and months for Circio ahead. If upcoming studies fail, does it have to be Circio's fault then? Or could it be the partner's or BP's delivery method (e.g. AAV, LNP or Peptides)? Many of us are heavily invested in the stock (and some of us in TR) because we love and believe in Circio. So I've been thinking: What actually happens if the first result from real disease models turns out to be less satisfactory? Soon, the results from the biggest dealbreaker for me will arrive - the transition from reporter genes to therapeutic ones. Or: Look! It glows in the right place! To: Look: We cured the tumor! In gene therapy, delivery, as I've read, is often a greater challenge than the genetic code itself. Here is my amateur (I have no biotech education) analysis of how to distinguish between "guilty" and "innocent" in case of a setback, and what the dynamic with Big Pharma (BP) looks like: 1. How to isolate "the weak link" In scientific studies, controls are apparently used to know exactly what stopped working. If Circio tests a disease model together with a partner, they run three parallel tracks: • Group A: Partner's AAV + Standard (linear) DNA. • Group B: Partner's AAV + Circio's circVec. • Group C: A "Gold Standard" AAV (which is known to work) + circVec. If Group B fails but Group C succeeds, then one knows that it was the partner's AAV that was the culprit. If both A and B fail, but Group C works, the evidence is even stronger: The delivery method was too poor to carry any code at all. 2. Would Big Pharma admit: "Our AAV is bad"? In the diplomatic business world, they might not say "sorry for our bad AAV", but the data probably speaks for itself. The fact is that many BP companies have delivery technologies that "hit a ceiling" as I understand it – they require too high doses to be safe. This is where Circio's business idea should come in: circVec should rescue mediocre delivery systems. • If a BP has an AAV that is slightly toxic at high doses, but circVec works 10–50 times more efficiently, they can dramatically lower the dose. • Then the "bad" AAV suddenly becomes a functional product thanks to Circio! 3. Transition to therapeutic models (The real test) Reporter genes (which glow and which Circio has used so far) are simple in this context because they only need to be visible. Therapeutic genes (which are meant to heal a cell) are more complex: • They are often larger (heavier load for the AAV). • They require exactly the right amount of protein – too little doesn't help, too much can be toxic, you know. If the result fails in a disease model, it could, if I've understood correctly, be because the therapeutic gene in circular form doesn't "fold" correctly or that the protein isn't produced at the rate required for that specific disease. Since Circio has already shown extremely high expression with circVec 4.0, should the risk be lower that the amount of protein is the problem? 4. The risk of "False Negatives" There is a risk that a BP partner uses an AAV optimized for linear DNA, and that circVec (which is a different structure) clashes with that specific viral particle. That's why Circio's collaborations with experts like Acuitas (LNP) and TraffikGene (peptides) are so important! I think this obviously gives Circio clean test environments where they can prove that the technology works without being dependent on a partner's potentially limited viral vectors. I believe that if an attempt fails, it's usually the distribution (reaching the right cell) or the dosage (too much/too little) that's the problem, rather than the circular code itself being defective, and I think that provides some security for our stock. For Circio, the coming months are about proving that circVec is so powerful that it can overcome the shortcomings of today's delivery methods. There's probably no doubt that if they succeed with this, they will become indispensable for Big Pharma, as they can turn "failed" drug candidates into winners. Perhaps you now have a bit more to go on if the market doesn't initially understand this difference (buying opportunity? 😉). Who knows how big the risk is that the stock will be punished for a delivery failure that wasn't actually Circio's fault? I at least know who I'm going to believe in. Rainy greetings from Sweden, at your service, Johan.·2 t sittenI think you should perhaps avoid promising that circVec can "save mediocre delivery systems". It is better to emphasize that circVec probably increases the value of any delivery system that actually delivers them.·1 t sittenThat's probably the case. At the same time, most probably have a bullish filter and of course none of us can promise anything.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
18 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·2 t sittenThe GEN article about Circio and TraffikGene confirms, in my opinion, the most important point in the case right now: It's about delivery. GEN describes the collaboration as a combination of Circio's circVec platform and TraffikGene's peptide-amphiphile delivery system, with the goal of more targeted, efficient, and long-lasting non-viral delivery to specific cell and tissue types. That is strategically important. The AAV track shows how circVec can improve classical gene therapy through higher expression and possible dose-sparing. The Acuitas track tests LNP delivery and in vivo CAR-T. The TraffikGene track adds a third route: peptide-based non-viral delivery. This means that Circio does not lock the technology to one delivery platform. They are testing whether circVec can work across multiple delivery systems. This is exactly what can increase the platform's value. The GEN article also points out that the collaboration will proceed step-by-step: first in vitro screening, then optimization of formulations, and finally in vivo testing in mice to assess expression kinetics, biodistribution, and delivery efficacy. In other words: this is still early research, not clinical or commercial validation. But it is a concrete test plan, and it directly addresses one of the biggest bottlenecks in gene and cell therapy. For me, the main point is simple: The engine is circVec. But the value increases significantly if the engine can be placed in multiple vehicles. AAV. LNP. Peptide-based non-viral delivery. This is what Circio is now building — step by step.
- ·2 t sittenExtremely important weeks and months for Circio ahead. If upcoming studies fail, does it have to be Circio's fault then? Or could it be the partner's or BP's delivery method (e.g. AAV, LNP or Peptides)? Many of us are heavily invested in the stock (and some of us in TR) because we love and believe in Circio. So I've been thinking: What actually happens if the first result from real disease models turns out to be less satisfactory? Soon, the results from the biggest dealbreaker for me will arrive - the transition from reporter genes to therapeutic ones. Or: Look! It glows in the right place! To: Look: We cured the tumor! In gene therapy, delivery, as I've read, is often a greater challenge than the genetic code itself. Here is my amateur (I have no biotech education) analysis of how to distinguish between "guilty" and "innocent" in case of a setback, and what the dynamic with Big Pharma (BP) looks like: 1. How to isolate "the weak link" In scientific studies, controls are apparently used to know exactly what stopped working. If Circio tests a disease model together with a partner, they run three parallel tracks: • Group A: Partner's AAV + Standard (linear) DNA. • Group B: Partner's AAV + Circio's circVec. • Group C: A "Gold Standard" AAV (which is known to work) + circVec. If Group B fails but Group C succeeds, then one knows that it was the partner's AAV that was the culprit. If both A and B fail, but Group C works, the evidence is even stronger: The delivery method was too poor to carry any code at all. 2. Would Big Pharma admit: "Our AAV is bad"? In the diplomatic business world, they might not say "sorry for our bad AAV", but the data probably speaks for itself. The fact is that many BP companies have delivery technologies that "hit a ceiling" as I understand it – they require too high doses to be safe. This is where Circio's business idea should come in: circVec should rescue mediocre delivery systems. • If a BP has an AAV that is slightly toxic at high doses, but circVec works 10–50 times more efficiently, they can dramatically lower the dose. • Then the "bad" AAV suddenly becomes a functional product thanks to Circio! 3. Transition to therapeutic models (The real test) Reporter genes (which glow and which Circio has used so far) are simple in this context because they only need to be visible. Therapeutic genes (which are meant to heal a cell) are more complex: • They are often larger (heavier load for the AAV). • They require exactly the right amount of protein – too little doesn't help, too much can be toxic, you know. If the result fails in a disease model, it could, if I've understood correctly, be because the therapeutic gene in circular form doesn't "fold" correctly or that the protein isn't produced at the rate required for that specific disease. Since Circio has already shown extremely high expression with circVec 4.0, should the risk be lower that the amount of protein is the problem? 4. The risk of "False Negatives" There is a risk that a BP partner uses an AAV optimized for linear DNA, and that circVec (which is a different structure) clashes with that specific viral particle. That's why Circio's collaborations with experts like Acuitas (LNP) and TraffikGene (peptides) are so important! I think this obviously gives Circio clean test environments where they can prove that the technology works without being dependent on a partner's potentially limited viral vectors. I believe that if an attempt fails, it's usually the distribution (reaching the right cell) or the dosage (too much/too little) that's the problem, rather than the circular code itself being defective, and I think that provides some security for our stock. For Circio, the coming months are about proving that circVec is so powerful that it can overcome the shortcomings of today's delivery methods. There's probably no doubt that if they succeed with this, they will become indispensable for Big Pharma, as they can turn "failed" drug candidates into winners. Perhaps you now have a bit more to go on if the market doesn't initially understand this difference (buying opportunity? 😉). Who knows how big the risk is that the stock will be punished for a delivery failure that wasn't actually Circio's fault? I at least know who I'm going to believe in. Rainy greetings from Sweden, at your service, Johan.·2 t sittenI think you should perhaps avoid promising that circVec can "save mediocre delivery systems". It is better to emphasize that circVec probably increases the value of any delivery system that actually delivers them.·1 t sittenThat's probably the case. At the same time, most probably have a bullish filter and of course none of us can promise anything.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
18 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·2 t sittenThe GEN article about Circio and TraffikGene confirms, in my opinion, the most important point in the case right now: It's about delivery. GEN describes the collaboration as a combination of Circio's circVec platform and TraffikGene's peptide-amphiphile delivery system, with the goal of more targeted, efficient, and long-lasting non-viral delivery to specific cell and tissue types. That is strategically important. The AAV track shows how circVec can improve classical gene therapy through higher expression and possible dose-sparing. The Acuitas track tests LNP delivery and in vivo CAR-T. The TraffikGene track adds a third route: peptide-based non-viral delivery. This means that Circio does not lock the technology to one delivery platform. They are testing whether circVec can work across multiple delivery systems. This is exactly what can increase the platform's value. The GEN article also points out that the collaboration will proceed step-by-step: first in vitro screening, then optimization of formulations, and finally in vivo testing in mice to assess expression kinetics, biodistribution, and delivery efficacy. In other words: this is still early research, not clinical or commercial validation. But it is a concrete test plan, and it directly addresses one of the biggest bottlenecks in gene and cell therapy. For me, the main point is simple: The engine is circVec. But the value increases significantly if the engine can be placed in multiple vehicles. AAV. LNP. Peptide-based non-viral delivery. This is what Circio is now building — step by step.
- ·2 t sittenExtremely important weeks and months for Circio ahead. If upcoming studies fail, does it have to be Circio's fault then? Or could it be the partner's or BP's delivery method (e.g. AAV, LNP or Peptides)? Many of us are heavily invested in the stock (and some of us in TR) because we love and believe in Circio. So I've been thinking: What actually happens if the first result from real disease models turns out to be less satisfactory? Soon, the results from the biggest dealbreaker for me will arrive - the transition from reporter genes to therapeutic ones. Or: Look! It glows in the right place! To: Look: We cured the tumor! In gene therapy, delivery, as I've read, is often a greater challenge than the genetic code itself. Here is my amateur (I have no biotech education) analysis of how to distinguish between "guilty" and "innocent" in case of a setback, and what the dynamic with Big Pharma (BP) looks like: 1. How to isolate "the weak link" In scientific studies, controls are apparently used to know exactly what stopped working. If Circio tests a disease model together with a partner, they run three parallel tracks: • Group A: Partner's AAV + Standard (linear) DNA. • Group B: Partner's AAV + Circio's circVec. • Group C: A "Gold Standard" AAV (which is known to work) + circVec. If Group B fails but Group C succeeds, then one knows that it was the partner's AAV that was the culprit. If both A and B fail, but Group C works, the evidence is even stronger: The delivery method was too poor to carry any code at all. 2. Would Big Pharma admit: "Our AAV is bad"? In the diplomatic business world, they might not say "sorry for our bad AAV", but the data probably speaks for itself. The fact is that many BP companies have delivery technologies that "hit a ceiling" as I understand it – they require too high doses to be safe. This is where Circio's business idea should come in: circVec should rescue mediocre delivery systems. • If a BP has an AAV that is slightly toxic at high doses, but circVec works 10–50 times more efficiently, they can dramatically lower the dose. • Then the "bad" AAV suddenly becomes a functional product thanks to Circio! 3. Transition to therapeutic models (The real test) Reporter genes (which glow and which Circio has used so far) are simple in this context because they only need to be visible. Therapeutic genes (which are meant to heal a cell) are more complex: • They are often larger (heavier load for the AAV). • They require exactly the right amount of protein – too little doesn't help, too much can be toxic, you know. If the result fails in a disease model, it could, if I've understood correctly, be because the therapeutic gene in circular form doesn't "fold" correctly or that the protein isn't produced at the rate required for that specific disease. Since Circio has already shown extremely high expression with circVec 4.0, should the risk be lower that the amount of protein is the problem? 4. The risk of "False Negatives" There is a risk that a BP partner uses an AAV optimized for linear DNA, and that circVec (which is a different structure) clashes with that specific viral particle. That's why Circio's collaborations with experts like Acuitas (LNP) and TraffikGene (peptides) are so important! I think this obviously gives Circio clean test environments where they can prove that the technology works without being dependent on a partner's potentially limited viral vectors. I believe that if an attempt fails, it's usually the distribution (reaching the right cell) or the dosage (too much/too little) that's the problem, rather than the circular code itself being defective, and I think that provides some security for our stock. For Circio, the coming months are about proving that circVec is so powerful that it can overcome the shortcomings of today's delivery methods. There's probably no doubt that if they succeed with this, they will become indispensable for Big Pharma, as they can turn "failed" drug candidates into winners. Perhaps you now have a bit more to go on if the market doesn't initially understand this difference (buying opportunity? 😉). Who knows how big the risk is that the stock will be punished for a delivery failure that wasn't actually Circio's fault? I at least know who I'm going to believe in. Rainy greetings from Sweden, at your service, Johan.·2 t sittenI think you should perhaps avoid promising that circVec can "save mediocre delivery systems". It is better to emphasize that circVec probably increases the value of any delivery system that actually delivers them.·1 t sittenThat's probably the case. At the same time, most probably have a bullish filter and of course none of us can promise anything.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt