Research into diabetes-associated cell states needs comparable results across laboratories and operators.

A 2026 study in Practical Laboratory Medicine examined subsets of peripheral blood CD34-positive cells as candidate cellular biomarkers for type 2 diabetes. It provides a starting point for assessing disease-associated cellular information from blood.

Building on these findings, we aim to co-develop research-use cell measurement reagents and an analysis service that evaluates data using consistent criteria.

This would combine the reagent with sample handling, measurement conditions, controls, cell-population identification, quality checks, and reporting formats. Universities and medical institutions could use it for comparative disease research; pharmaceutical companies could use it to explore cellular changes before and after investigational treatment.

We are also considering a central analysis service that applies common criteria to flow cytometry data from multiple sites and returns research reports. This could reduce site-to-site variation and support the continued accumulation of research data.

The first step is to test whether reported candidate cell populations can be measured reliably. Any additional Biozipcode™ labeling or capture would require separate performance validation. Diagnostic uses and treatment selection would be developed separately from the research-use assay.

The joint objective is a transferable assay and an analysis service that produces comparable data.

Disease research and drug discovery need tools to distinguish target cells and assess where a candidate actually binds.

Studies underpinning Biozipcode™ have synthesized homing peptides and tested their binding to and uptake by particular cells. In work involving astrocytes and microglia, for example, candidate peptide recognition and siRNA delivery to microglia were studied in mouse models.

On this basis, we are exploring research probes that visualize target cells, reagents for cell capture, and services to assess candidate peptide targeting.

One collaboration could combine a university’s disease model or patient-derived cells with our peptide discovery and sequence analysis. The candidates could then be fluorescently labeled and developed into research tools that partners can evaluate in their own facilities.

The deliverable would extend beyond sequence information to include synthetic peptides, controls, evaluation procedures, and data from target and non-target cells.

We will not assume that binding in one setting applies to other cell types or routes of administration. We aim to make research tools whose intended experiments and uses are defined and whose performance is tested within that scope.

Our diabetes therapy research investigates an approach combining blood glucose stabilization with intervention in abnormal cell states associated with disease.

A 2023 Communications Biology study reported sustained normoglycemia in mice with STZ-induced diabetes after both insulin and the HDAC inhibitor givinostat were discontinued. The preclinical study assessed the state after treatment, beyond glucose lowering during treatment.

In co-development, we would not apply these mouse findings directly to people. Instead, we aim to define a development candidate with a target population, therapeutic components, formulation, dosing method, treatment duration, and endpoints.

We can combine pharmaceutical partners’ expertise in pharmacology, formulation, and safety with disease research and clinical insight from universities and medical institutions to define the patients and treatment being investigated. Biomarkers would be developed in parallel to test their relationship to treatment response.

We also consider 5-ALA a research candidate, but evaluate it separately from the published givinostat study, including its mechanism, necessary exposure, safety, and potential product role.

The first co-development outcome would be a defined investigational product candidate and evaluation plan with evidence to support a decision on further nonclinical and clinical development.

A molecule can have strong pharmacological activity yet fail to reach the intended cells. Delivering enough of it may expose normal tissues unnecessarily.

To address such development challenges, we are exploring combinations of Biozipcode™ with partners’ therapeutic molecules or delivery technologies.

Potential products include targeting peptide–drug conjugates, carriers for nucleic acid delivery incorporating Biozipcode™, and cell-targeted DDS formulations. They would be designed around a defined target, such as candidate diabetes stem cells or cancer-associated cells.

Partners could contribute drug candidates and formulation technology, while we contribute peptide discovery and evaluation capabilities. Adding a peptide is not assumed to improve performance.

Joint evaluations would compare candidates against non-targeted formulations with the same agent, assessing delivery to target cells, cellular uptake where needed, pharmacological effects, and impact on normal tissues. We will assess increased binding separately from therapeutic benefit.

Combining Biozipcode™ with therapeutic molecules or carriers is one pillar of our diagnostic and therapeutic development plans. We will validate targeting and compatibility with each agent before selecting candidates to advance.

The goal is a prototype comparable to existing formulations, with efficacy, distribution, and safety data to support co-development or licensing decisions.

We are also considering how research-use cell analysis might eventually become a more practical measurement technology.

One concept is a system combining a chip or cartridge that captures target cells with an instrument and analysis software that reads the captured cells. We could use Biozipcode™ as a cell-recognition component, developing the instrument, reagents, and analysis together.

This concept builds on a cell-capture chip and compact measurement device described in our materials. It would follow establishment of a research-use assay and confirmation of biomarker validity.

With medical device and microfluidics partners, we would examine sample volume, contamination by non-target cells, detection limits, ease of use, and consumable quality as well as capture efficiency. Capturing live cells and measuring fixed or processed cells would be designed as different use cases.

We will not promise a finished one-drop-of-blood diagnostic device at the outset. First, we would build a prototype that can be compared with a reference laboratory assay. The results would guide whether to pursue research-use provision or development for diagnostic use.

The co-development challenge is to achieve the accuracy and workflow required in real use, not merely to move a measurement principle into a device.

For tissue regeneration, we aim to use Biozipcode™ to connect cells with materials through molecular recognition, rather than to carry drugs.

Potential co-development products include scaffolds incorporating cell-recognition peptides and prototypes made with biodegradable materials for tissue repair. Our research materials describe a concept in which cells adhere to peptides on a material, and tissue formation is supported as cells proliferate and the material degrades.

We would combine materials manufacturers’ processing capabilities and researchers’ expertise in plastic surgery and regenerative medicine with Biozipcode™ cell recognition.

For wound healing, for example, we would first identify which regenerative cells should adhere, then examine how to display a peptide recognizing those cells on the material surface. We would test whether recognition persists after immobilization and whether adhered cells survive and retain their function.

Binding alone does not establish long-range recruitment or tissue regeneration. We aim to test adhesion, cell accumulation, and tissue formation separately. We would also evaluate performance after sterilization and storage and the material’s strength and degradation properties from the product-design stage.

We would begin with comparative studies of functionalized research materials and advance candidates toward medical use only after their efficacy and safety in the target tissue have been evaluated.

At the outset, we combine a partner’s reagents, drugs, or materials with our cell-recognition technology to prepare prototypes and controls for evaluation. We first test whether the intended function is reproducible and whether a potential advantage over existing technology can be assessed.

If early results are encouraging, we test reproducibility with independent samples and other operators or sites. For reagents, we assess measurement variability; for DDS, differences from non-targeted formulations; for materials, differences from unmodified materials.

We document conditions in which the approach fails and its limits as well as favorable results, defining where it can be used.

When moving forward, we organize technical specifications, evaluation procedures, raw data, analysis methods, manufacturing challenges, and plans for further testing alongside the prototype.

We aim to make the outcome transferable to manufacturing, quality, regulatory, and clinical teams, without relying on a single researcher’s experience. Product definition, assays, and manufacturing and nonclinical plans are also part of our development concept.