A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Going back to --
-
I would say that 99 percent of them were done as MTA agreements. There would probably be outliers, occasionally, but that would be on existing projects where collaborations exist through a grant, and reagents are needed to further the aims of the grant.
-
Did you have a UBMTA with NIH-RML? What's the date on this? It's from 2023, on pangolin beta coronaviruses, where it looks like you would be providing original material to Vincent Munster from RML. Pangolin coronavirus was the original material, and the transmittal fee to reimburse the provider for preparation and distribution costs amount is zero. Is that something that was executed? DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
-
I recall sending them WIV1 and SHSC014 for studies in bats. It's possible that we sent them the pangolin coronavirus. I'd have to check the MTA agreements.
-
2026-04-10 09:00
Christina Salazar
I guess, is that something that's published, the pangolin beta coronavirus? What is that?
-
I had mentioned it previously. It's called pangolin coronavirus GD strain, and it was published in Nature Microbiology.
-
And do you know what RML was doing with that?
-
RML, again, I'd have to look at the MTA agreement that would tell me what was in it. We would have to pull it from the MTA. I can tell you that during the pandemic we did hundreds of MTA agreements with research institutions in the United States. If you ask me if I can remember this one directly, I can't, because if I had a person in my lab who I would say, "Take care of this MTA agreement," and they would do it.
-
Is it typical that the transmittal fee would be zero? I just don't know.