Following its recognition as a winner of the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge at RESI Europe, You2Yourself is advancing a new approach to early disease detection through longitudinal biomarker monitoring. In this interview, Bram De Moor discusses the science behind URIMON, the company’s commercialization strategy, and how RESI has supported its investor engagement.
Bram De Moor Founder & General Manager, You2Yourself
Caitlin Dolegowski (CD): For those new to You2Yourself, how would you describe URIMON and the value of longitudinal biomarker monitoring in a way that resonates with investors?
Bram De Moor (BD): URIMON is a personalized, non-invasive, urine-based liquid biopsy platform that uses urinary miRNA profiling to detect multiple serious diseases — including prostate cancer, lung cancer, and cardiovascular disease — before symptoms appear. One urine sample generates simultaneous risk scores across multiple conditions.
The longitudinal dimension is key: repeated monitoring detects biological drift months to years before clinical symptoms — the difference between catching cancer at stage I versus stage III. With no needles, no clinic visit, and at-home collection with mail-in capability, URIMON is designed for scalable, population-level adoption.
CD: What makes your approach to early disease detection fundamentally different from traditional diagnostic models?
BD: Traditional diagnostics are reactive and often focus on a single biomarker. URIMON differs in three key ways:
Multi-disease detection from a single sample, analyzing hundreds of miRNA species simultaneously
Focus on molecular signals rather than anatomical changes, enabling earlier detection
Use of urine as a scalable, patient-friendly biofluid that captures signals from across the body
This approach provides a unified molecular health view, reducing fragmentation across specialties.
CD: You have built a unique biobank of longitudinal samples — how does this dataset strengthen your technology and create a competitive advantage?
BD: The URIMON Biobank, developed since 2019 with over 6,500 participants under IRB-approved and GDPR-compliant protocols, is a significant strategic moat.
It enables algorithm training on longitudinal patient data, including individuals who later develop disease, supporting prospective validation. It also ensures robustness across cohorts, allowing classifiers to generalize beyond a single institution.
Replicating this dataset would require years and substantial capital, making it a durable barrier to entry.
CD: How do you think about commercialization, particularly your subscription-based model and the path toward broader reimbursement and population-level adoption?
BD: Our strategy is staged to de-risk scaling. We are entering the market under the EU IVDR Article 5(5) in-house LDT framework to accelerate time to revenue.
Our subscription model (€299–499/year) targets individuals, employer groups, and occupational health programs, aligning recurring revenue with longitudinal monitoring.
Reimbursement will follow through HTA submissions in Europe, with FDA De Novo clearance as a parallel pathway in the U.S.
CD: What key milestones or inflection points should investors be watching as you move toward your planned 2027 market entry?
BD: Key milestones include:
Clinical validation and publication of performance data
Regulatory progress under IVDR and FDA pathways
Launch of commercial infrastructure and first paying customers
Strategic partnerships and completion of financing rounds
These milestones will demonstrate both technical validation and commercial traction.
CD: How did participating in RESI Europe and the Innovator’s Pitch Challenge impact your investor visibility and strategic conversations?
BD: RESI provided direct access to European and transatlantic investors actively seeking early-stage diagnostic companies — a highly targeted audience that is difficult to reach through traditional outreach.
The Innovator’s Pitch Challenge offered structured validation in a competitive setting, signaling credibility to institutional investors. It also led to new investor conversations and follow-up meetings now underway.
CD: Following your recognition at RESI Europe, what are the next key priorities for You2Yourself as you move into your next phase of growth?
BD: Our focus over the next 12–18 months includes:
Expanding clinical evidence through continued biobank growth and prospective studies
Securing financing through grants and a seed-to-Series A bridge round
Scaling team and infrastructure across lab, regulatory, and business development functions
With favorable market conditions — including advances in NGS, growing demand for preventive health, and regulatory clarity — You2Yourself is well positioned to lead in this space.
Applications are now open for upcoming Innovator’s Pitch Challenges. Companies can apply to pitch at RESI San Diego 2026 and take the stage in front of a global network of investors and partners.
The approval of multiple anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) — aducanumab (Aduhelm; now withdrawn), lecanemab (Leqembi) and donanemab (Kisunla) — over the past five years has opened the era of disease-modifying Alzheimer’s drugs, albeit with only modest benefits in addressing cognitive decline (30% slowing) and associated serious safety risks, such as CNS inflammation and cerebral hemorrhages, which has limited clinical uptake. While many drug development programs target biological processes other than amyloid formation (e.g., tau and tangles, neurotransmitter receptors, neuroinflammation, autophagy, and mitochondrial or metabolic dysfunction), companies continue to optimize anti-amyloid monoclonals, but also look for alternative ways to therapeutically target Aβ.
Different mechanisms being targeted in Alzheimer’s human testing. Although amyloid has long dominated drug-development efforts, there are now more neuroinflammatory targets in phase 2 trials than anti-amyloid treatments. Source: Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
One alternative therapeutic modality to antibodies is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) immune cell therapy. In recent weeks, we have been thinking a lot about in vivo chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T therapies, which were one of the dealmaking trends in 2025, and we recommend readers check out an excellent summary of trends in the area from the consultancy firm Scitaris (you don’t even have to give them your details to download the report).
CAR-T treatments have established their clinical niche as last-ditch treatments for B-cell malignancies, with some remarkable outcomes for late-stage patients. In some cases, they have been shown to be at least twice as effective as T-cell engager bispecific antibodies in clinical studies. But they remain rather blunt instruments.
Despite advances in the clinical management of cytokine-release syndrome and immune effector cell neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), CAR-T treatments continue to be associated with serious risks. And while there have been advances in managing these adverse events, atypical non-ICANS neurotoxicities (NINTs) can also create serious clinical management issues, with risk factors predisposing patients to development still only poorly understood.
To that end, they used in vivo gene therapy to generate astrocytes carrying chimeric antigen receptors (“CAR-As”), a strategy not unlike the one used in cancer immunotherapy. Although both macrophages (CAR-Ms) and conventional CAR-Ts have been tested in preclinical models of Alzheimer’s disease with limited success, this study reports the first attempt to directly engineer astrocytes in the body to generate CAR-As.
CAR-A treatment of amyloid pathology in an AD-related model. The left panel shows the study design. The beneficial effect of CAR-A treatment depends on its improvement of astrocytic phagocytosis of Aβ, which results in reduced microglial burden and neuronal dystrophy (top right). The team tested two different CAR-As, which acted by different mechanisms converging on the same therapeutic effect (bottom right). Source: Science
In broad terms, the construct used to generate CAR-As consisted of an Aβ-binding domain and the phagocytic signaling protein MEGF10 (multiple epidermal growth factor-like domains protein 10). The team examined a variety of constructs and chose two for in vivo testing. One of them combined a fragment from the Aβ-binding antibody crenezumab and MEGF10, which is primarily expressed in astrocytes. The second construct combined a fragment of aducanumab with the phagocytosis receptor Dectin-1, which is primarily expressed in microglia.
The authors packaged the constructs in an adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector under the control of an astrocyte-specific promoter and injected them intravenously into 5xFAD mice (which carry five familial Alzheimer’s disease (FAD) mutations, driving rapid Aβ plaque formation, synaptic loss, and cognitive decline starting around 2–4 months). Both CAR-As reduced amyloid burden and neuritic dystrophy, and the treatment worked both in the prophylactic and therapeutic settings.
Single-nucleus RNA sequencing and immunostaining showed that the CAR-As adopted the transcriptomic profile of activated astrocytes and readily clustered around amyloid plaques. Microglial cells, in turn, also responded to the treatment by showing a reduction of the disease-associated transcriptomic profile that is often seen after administration of monoclonal anti-Aβ antibodies. This is of interest because this disease profile of microglial cells has been suggested to contribute to the inflammatory reaction sometimes seen after Alzheimer’s immunotherapy.
A caveat of the study is that the authos saw no improvements in cognition following therapy, albeit behavioral results in mouse models have been notoriously poor at predicting outcomes in humans. However, the translational questions don’t stop there.
If in clinical practice the CAR-A approach would require an AAV vector, then immunogenicity of the treatment is going to be an issue. Pre-exposure to AAV is often a problem for gene-therapy programs, where patients are much younger. Given that Alzheimer’s is a disease associated with an elderly population, immunogenicity is likely to be exacerbated. Similarly, the delivery of 1013–1014 viral genomes to elderly patients living with Alzheimer’s—many of whom will already have a brain prone to neuroinflammation—makes the specter of unwanted side effects a major concern. In this respect, finding Alzheimer’s patients whose disease stage and age would be appropriate for a therapy with potentially highly toxic consequences for fragile recipients is also difficult to gauge.
That is not to say that CAR-immune cell therapy may not have a place in CNS disease. It just seems like neurological conditions, such as multiple sclerosis where patients are younger and potentially less fragile, are the place where much of the translational groundwork and clinical management for CAR-A or CAR-T therapies must be worked out before moving into neurodegenerative disease for elderly and cognitively compromised patients.
X-ray crystallography has long been the go-to workhorse for providing atomic structures of drugs interacting with their protein targets. Increasingly, those static snapshots are being complemented by readouts from experimental analytical tools based on nucleic magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and cryoelectron microscopy (cryo-EM), offering drug developers a broader window into proteins as dynamic, breathing molecules. This is spurring a raft of new service provider startups, including AIffinity (Brno-Medlánky, Czech Republic), NexMR (Zürich, Switzlerand), CryoCloud (Utrecht), and Intellicule (West Lafayette, IN), all of which aim to supply drug-discovery teams with state-of-the-art platforms providing structural data with rapid turnaround times and low cost.
As many of the most compelling ‘undruggable’ targets are renowned shape shifters — aggregation-prone proteins like Tau, amyloid precursor protein (APP) or huntingtin in neurodegenerative diseases, or transcription factors like P53, KRAS and c-MYC in oncology — a lot of therapeutic startup activity has recently focused around so-called ‘intrinsically disordered proteins’ (IDPs). The ability to attain markedly different conformations under different conditions allows IDPs not only to play moonlighting roles or serve as hubs in signaling networks, but also to localize into liquid- phase condensates (or membrane-less organelles — attributes that make them acutely sensitive to mutations that can compromise specificity and lead to nonspecific binding, resulting in toxicity and disease.
An important postscript to the startup activity targeting undruggable IDPs is that more conventional ‘druggable’ target classes, like tyrosine kinases, may also represent a fruitful hunting ground for dynamic conformational states that may have been missed by traditional crystallographic approaches. Given that conventional drug targets have relatively well-trodden clinical and commercial development paths, they may also represent simpler starting points and testing grounds for commercial programs aiming to apply the new analytical approaches to support medicinal chemistry programs around validated targets.
In a paper recently published in Science, the team of Charalampos (Babis) Kalodimos at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital use high-resolution NMR spectroscopy to gain structural insight into how SRC family tyrosine kinases (Src, Hck, and Lck) achieve processive phosphorylation of multisite substrates.
NMR spectroscopy offers direct access to (~1–2 Å) resolution atomic information to identify non-covalent interactions between a drug and a protein target. Starting from 13C-labeled amino acids/precursors (left), a backbone and side-chain amino acids in a protein of interest (up to 80 kDa in size) can be selectively labeled for NMR structure determination. Substantial chemical shift changes of protein signals induced by aromatic ligand ring-systems can be directly incorporated into 3D structural calculations of protein–drug complexes. Source: Communications Chemistry
The SRC enzyme family is essential for rapid and coordinated signaling in processes such as cell migration and T-cell activation. In addition, SRC family kinases are frequently overexpressed in tumors, contributing to the activation not only of multiple scaffold or signaling proteins, such as receptor tyrosine kinases (e.g., EGFR, FGFR, PDGFR or IGF1R), but also of downstream effectors (e.g., MAPKs, FAK, paxillin, p130Cas, ELMO1 and RAC1). Although there are approved drugs like the multikinase inhibitor Sprycel (dasatinib) that bind the SRC active site, these drugs have such extensive off-target and adverse side effects that there is a pressing need for new paths to more-selective SRC inhibitors.
SRC enzymes share a conserved domain organization, with a disordered N-tail, a tandem SH3–SH2 module, a kinase domain, and a disordered C-tail. All can carry out processive phosphorylation — a phenomenon where the enzyme phosphorylates multiple residues in a substrate during a single encounter. Each of these catalytic cycles typically requires ATP binding, phosphate transfer and ADP release, and ADP release is often the rate-limiting step. So, a question that has long puzzled structural biologists is how ADP-release–constrained kinases achieve sufficiently rapid turnover to successfully perform their function.
Using NMR spectroscopy with cryogenic probes — which reduce electronic/thermal noise and increase sensitivity up to five-fold compared with room-temperature probes — the St. Jude team characterized the conformational ensemble of the Src kinase domain and identified three interconverting states: a predominant active state, a previously described inactive Src/CDK-like state, and a hitherto unknown low-populated intermediate state positioned linearly between the other two. Structural determination revealed that this intermediate state displays features that are distinct from the active and inactive states. Its activation loop is partially folded, the P-loop is displaced inward, and the αC helix is shifted upward. This conformation binds ADP poorly relative to the active and inactive states, suggesting that it facilitates nucleotide release.
(A) Schematic representation of processive phosphorylation by an SFK. Substrate binding through the SH3 domain prolongs the residence time of the complex, allowing the kinase to phosphorylate multiple sites in a single binding event. Each catalytic cycle involves ATP binding and hydrolysis, transfer of the γ-phosphate to the substrate and ADP release, followed by a new cycle without dissociation of the complex. To sustain processive phosphorylation, the catalytic turnover — limited by ADP release — must be sufficiently fast to complete multiple phosphorylation events before dissociation of the SH3–substrate complex. (B) Energy landscape of the ground (G) and excited (E1 and E2) states of Src KD determined by NMR. Populations and kinetics of interconversion determined by fitting the relaxation data are shown. Structures of the (C) active state, (D) intermediate state and (E) inactive state. Source: Science
Using mutational analyses, the researchers then confirmed the functional importance of this intermediate state. Variants that eliminated this intermediate state while stabilizing the active state showed slower ADP dissociation, reduced catalytic turnover and impaired processive phosphorylation of the multisite Src substrate p130Cas. Instead of generating a fully phosphorylated substrate in a single binding event, these mutants accumulated partially phosphorylated intermediates. Equivalent mutations in other kinases of the SRC family, Lck and Hck, similarly reduced catalytic efficiency and impaired multisite phosphorylation of their respective physiological substrates CD3ζ and ELMO1 in Jurkat cells. Furthermore, these mutations compromised cellular functions measured via in vitro assays, including T-cell activation using Lck-deficient Jurkat cells and migration of mouse embryo fibroblasts lacking Src, Yes and Fyn in the presence of fibronectin. These molecular and functional findings indicate that the intermediate state is evolutionarily conserved and essential for processive activity across the SRC family.
Mechanistically, the work establishes that rapid ADP release, enabled by transient sampling of a structurally constrained intermediate, is critical for sustaining catalytic turnover rates that exceed the speed of substrate dissociation. More broadly, it shows that kinase conformational landscapes are tuned not only for switching between active and inactive states, but also for optimizing specific kinetic steps within the catalytic cycle.
From a drug developer’s standpoint, because Sprycel and other inhibitors target the active or inactive conformations of the SRC active site, the identification of a low-populated, functionally indispensable intermediate suggests a completely new strategy to target tyrosine kinases: selectively stabilize or destabilize the intermediate state to fine-tune catalytic turnover and processivity rather than simply blocking activity. Targeting such transient conformations could enable more precise modulation of signaling output, potentially improving selectivity and reducing off-target effects in kinase-directed therapies.
We look forward to seeing how many more of these intermediate states are uncovered in other kinase targets and whether pharmacological inhibitors targeting this state have advantages over orthosteric or allosteric chemotypes that conventionally have been used to inhibit the kinase active site or lock it in an inactive conformation. What is clear is that ultrafast NMR measurements of binding and state behavior are a powerful differentiating tool for understanding kinase activity where static structures aren’t enough.
In our past issue, we took a look at all the financing deals that The Needle has covered since our inaugural issue. This week we turn our attention to last year’s deal making in the preclinical biotech space.
In 2025, preclinical dealmaking didn’t just slow — it polarized. Capital clustered around AI-enabled discovery, China-sourced assets, and in vivo CAR-T cell therapies, while entire therapeutic categories effectively disappeared from licensing activity. Based on the 131 publicly disclosed preclinical transactions in our sample, we reveal where early-stage risk capital is still flowing — and where it has quietly retreated.
Similar to the data we reported in our past newsletter, our analysis captures only publicly disclosed deals (partnerships, research collaborations, licenses, joint ventures, reverse mergers, equity investments and options) on business wires, industry news sites, and venture-fund sources. In the preclinical space, many deals are carried out in stealth, and companies in some important regions (like China) don’t use business wires or news sources traditionally available in the West. For these reasons, our estimates underestimate the true level of early-stage preclinical dealmaking.
In total, we tracked 131 preclinical deals over the year, of which 42 were licensing deals, 64 were strategic partnerships/collaborations and 14 were mergers and acquisitions (M&As). In keeping with early stage’s exploratory nature, the importance of stealth, and the non-compensatory nature of much of the work done, over half of the publicly announced strategic partnerships (35 deals; 55%) had no terms disclosed. As one would expect, a smaller proportion of the licensing deals failed to provide terms, but even for this category, 8 of the 48 transactions (17%) didn’t give financial details. Four of the 14 M&As that we tracked also made no mention of deal terms.
Geographical distribution of preclinical biotechs involved in partnerships, licenses and M&As for Q2-Q4 2025. Source: Haystack Science
US-headquartered companies continue to dominate the dealmaking landscape, whether it is research collaborations, licensing or trade sales. One reason for the dominance of companies in the US — and the UK, which is second in deal activity — is likely simple math; a greater number of companies are financed and built in these countries compared with the rest of the globe (see The Needle Issue #22).
Types of therapeutic under development in preclinical biotechs that were partnered, licensed or acquired in Q2-Q4 2025. Source: Haystack Science
Strategic partnerships in 2025 favored platforms over products — and Western biotechs over Asian peers.
The 64 strategic partnerships we tracked had upfront payments that ranged from $5 million to $110 million, but the median ($35.5 million) underscores how concentrated value remains in a handful of outlier platform deals.
US companies accounted for 37 of the 64 deals (58%). Three notable partnering big-ticket deals involved biotechs splashing out large sums on preclinical collaborations, with the payers showing interest in branching out into new therapeutic modalities: last May, CRISPR Therapeutics (San Diego, CA) pivoted from gene editing to siRNA, paying $95 million to Sirius Therapeutics (Shanghai, China) to co-develop a long-acting siRNA designed to selectively inhibit Factor XI for thrombosis; in December, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (Tarrytown, NY) spent $150 million (and made an equity investment) to jointly develop Tessera Therapeutics’ (Somerville, MA) target-primed reverse transcription therapy (TSRA-196), which uses lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to deliver RNAs encoding an engineered reverse transcriptase (‘gene writer’), writer-recognition motifs, and a SERPINA1 template to correct a mutation in alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency; and later the same month, peptide developer Zealand Pharma (Søborg, Denmark) announced a transaction with OTR Therapeutics (Shanghai, China), paying $20 million upfront for small-molecule programs centered around validated targets of Zealand’s franchise in cardio-metabolic disease.
Disease areas in which preclinical biotechs are developing therapeutics that were partnered, licensed or acquired in Q2-Q4 2025. Source: Haystack Science
For obvious reasons, target discovery and drug screening comprise about a third of collaborations and partnership agreements, but do not figure much in licensing and M&A. Mentions of machine learning in partnering deals (18.2% of 2025’s deals, with several in the top 10 grossing set) suggest large-language and other models are an increasingly established facet of preclinical development. Neurodegenerative disorders garnered the second largest number of partnering transactions in our 2025 sample. And, with all the noise around GLP-1s and other incretins, metabolic disease and obesity were the focus of 11% of deals.
Perhaps the most counterintuitive finding in the partnership data is the near-total absence of China-headquartered companies — despite their dominance in preclinical licensing. This may reflect geopolitical friction, IP risk tolerance or a Western preference for control in collaborations. Alternatively, the absence may reflect the limitations of Haystack’s methodology for collecting data. Certainly, the partnership data contrasts starkly with our licensing data, which show Chinese assets performing so well that they are biting at the heels of US companies and running far ahead of UK companies. In contrast, for strategic partnerships, it was UK-, and South Korea-based firms that were most prominent behind the US (15%, and 7% of dealmaking, respectively).
Top 10 partnering deals for preclinical biotech companies Q2-Q4 2025 ranked by size of upfront payment. Source: Haystack Science
For licensing, the shift to Asia seen in later parts of the biotech pipeline is also manifest in the preclinical space.
Chinese companies were involved in nearly a quarter of all the licensing deals made last year, clinching 11 out of the 48 deals we tracked. This interest in early-stage Chinese assets mirrors last year’s banner deals for later-stage assets, such as Pfizer’s ex-China rights acquisition of 3SBio’s (Shenyang, China) PD-1 x VEGF bispecific antibody for $1.25 billion, or GSK’s $1.10 billion acquisition of Jiangsu Hengrui’s (Lianyungang, China) phosphodiesterase 3/4 inhibitor and oncology portfolio. Overall, deals seeking access to assets from Asian biotechs (companies based in China, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan) comprised 33% of all preclinical licensing transactions in our sample.
Looking at the preclinical licensing as a whole, upfront amounts ranged from $0.7 million to $700 million, with a median value of $35 million. Most deals centered around cancer, followed by autoimmune, neurodegenerative and metabolic diseases.
What was perhaps most surprising is that we didn’t see any licenses for preclinical assets in the cardiovascular space, suggesting that the interest of a few years ago has somewhat diminished (although assets for heart disease still made up 4% of partnering agreements). Notably absent from preclinical licensing in 2025: cardiovascular, pulmonary, skeletomuscular, hepatic, pain, psychiatry, women’s health, sleep, hearing, and stroke. This pattern perhaps reinforces the industry’s retrenchment toward genetically anchored, biologically de-risked indications. Together, these licensing gaps underscore a 10-year low in early-stage risk appetite outside traditional blockbuster categories.
The top 10 licensing deals from last year are listed in the Table below. Of this elite tier of top-grossing deals, cancer and autoimmune comprised the lion’s share (70%), with neurodegenerative, neurodevelopmental, metabolic, and ophthalmic disease all represented. Only two of the top 10 deals involved traditional small molecules (with one additional license for a molecular glue), whereas biologics accounted for seven. While small molecules still comprise the biggest chunk of licensing activity (18.9%), deals trended toward bispecific and multispecific antibodies for cancer immunology and autoimmune indications — and biopharma was prepared to pay: Of the 8 licensing transactions for multispecifics in our sample, IGI Therapeutics’ (New York, NY) deal with Abbvie, and CDR Life’s (Zurich, Switzerland) agreement with Boehringer Ingelheim, ended among the top 10 grossing deals of the year.
Top 10 licensing deals for preclinical biotech companies Q2-Q4 2025 ranked by size of upfront payment. Source: Haystack Science
Which leads us to mergers. Overall, we tracked 14 M&A deals last year in the preclinical space. According to Dealforma data presented at JP Morgan, private biopharma accounted for just over 55% of merger activity in 2025 on par with previous years. In the Haystack data, 12 of the 14 acquisitions for preclinical programs were for US-based private companies, reinforcing the historical trend of American biotechs outperforming those in the rest of the world in terms of negotiating successful exits for their investors.
M&A deals for the eight preclinical biotech companies in Q2-Q4 2025 where financial terms were disclosed ranked by deal size. Overall, Haystack tracked 14 preclinical M&As, six of which gave no financial terms. Source: Haystack Science
The biggest story in early-stage mergers from last year, though, was biopharma’s ravenous appetite for in vivo CAR-T cell therapy, with Capstan, Orbital and Interius comprising 3 of the 14 acquisitions recorded by Haystack, all of which ranked among the top 5 highest upfront payments. As our sampling commenced in April 2025, we missed another deal: AstraZeneca’s acquisition of lentiviral in vivo CAR-T therapy developer Esobiotec, originally announced in March 2025 with an upfront of $425 million. All in all, in vivo CAR-T therapies claimed 4 of the top 5 acquisitions last year.
In sum, the preclinical dealscape in 2025 reveals an industry willing to fund innovation — but only when paired with platform leverage, delivery, or late-stage optionality. As Haystack tracks dealmaking through 2026, the key question will not be whether capital returns to early-stage biotech, but whether it broadens beyond today’s narrow set of ‘acceptable’ risks. We look forward to tracking deals throughout 2026 and identifying new emerging trends in biotech deals.
As is customary at the turn of the year, we have taken the opportunity to take a look back at financing deals we covered since issue#1, which went live in April last year. Together, these data offer a snapshot of how capital flowed into early-stage, preclinical therapeutic startups in 2025 — and where it did not.
Before diving into the numbers, it is worth qualifying that this analysis captures only publicly disclosed financing rounds, rather than the full universe of early-stage biotech funding. An increasing fraction of preclinical companies now operate in stealth, in part because of fast-moving competition from regions such as China. As a result, the figures presented here likely undercount the true level of early-stage activity.
From the start of our coverage in Q2 2025 through the end of December, we reported 195 preclinical financing rounds. Because Haystack Science focuses on discovery-stage and pre-IND companies, this number excludes financings for assets already in clinical development. Even so, the dataset provides a useful lens on early-stage investor behavior.
Independent industry analyses paint a consistent picture. Multiple sources indicate that 2025 was a year in which venture capital shifted toward later-stage, clinical-stage deals, which were fewer in number but larger in size. This trend was reinforced by ‘Q4 2025 Biopharma Licensing and Venture Report’, presented at the JP Morgan conference. According to JP Morgan, 2025 saw just 191 seed and Series A financings, the lowest total since 2020.
Seed and Series A investment slowed through Q4 2025, losing momentum built earlier in the year and further lagging Series B and later rounds. The slowdown in early-stage funding reflects heightened diligence standards and longer decision timelines for early-stage startups. Source: JP Morgan
According to the Haystack Science data sample, no venture fund made a series A investment in more than three companies last year (these series A financings ranged from $8–300 million, with a median of $42.5 million). As the deals that Haystack tracks are only the publicly disclosed subset, we expect our sample is skewed to companies that raised larger sums. In the deals we tracked, the most bloated series A ($300 million) went to Cambridge, Mass.-based Lila Sciences, a generative ML model powered startup building “autonomous, closed-loop experimentation using generative ML models to generate drug mechanism hypotheses, test them robotically in the lab with minimal human intervention, and iteratively learn from results.” Lila was backed by megafund Flagship Pioneering and General Catalyst.
21 funds invested in more than one series A round. These were: Arch Ventures, Atlas Venture, Lightstone Ventures, 3E Bioventures, Access Industries/Biotechnology, BGF, BVF Partners, Canaan Partners, Cormorant Asset Management, Dementia Discovery Fund, Eight Roads, Johnson & Johnson Innovation – JJDC, Khosla, Omega Funds, Orbimed, Polaris Partners, Samsara, Santé Ventures, Sofinnova Partners, The Column Group, and Versant Ventures. No fund invested in more than 3 series A investments in last year’s sample.
Further back in the pipeline, we tracked 60 deals. These seed financings—which ranged from $1.1–54.5 million with a median of $10.45 million—were mostly for smaller amounts ($1–$30 million), with a few much larger financing amounts. Overall, 85 different funds, family offices, angels and individuals participated in funding preclinical therapeutic startups in 2025. Of these 85 sources of financing, only 7 financed more than one company. The takeaway from this is that most (>90%) of companies at the seed stage receive funds from a completely unique set of investors.
The 7 financing entities involved in more than one seed deal were: AdBio Partners, Kurma Partners, NRW Bank, Ackermans & van Haaren (AvH), Bioinnovation Institute (BII), ClavystBio and ExSight Ventures. It is noteworthy that two of these funds are based in Paris, France: AdBio Partners and Kurma Partners. AdBio specializes in early-stage investments across Europe with a ~€86 million ($102 million) fund raised in 2021 focusing on oncology, immunology, and rare diseases. Kurma is part of the Eurazeo group, managing >€600 million in assets across several funds focused on early-stage therapeutics and diagnostics.
NRW.BANK, based in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, invests in innovative biotech companies focusing on tech-driven healthcare, bio-digital integration, and novel platforms for data/discovery, aligning with broader innovation goals. They appear to be an important source for the small scattering of financing (13) deals in German-speaking countries. NRW works closely with AvH, an Antwerp, Belgium-based diversified holding company and investment firm, with AvH Growth Capital a proactive investor in early-stage companies like DISCO Pharmaceuticals and Evla Bio.
Another very interesting seed funder is BII in Copenhagen Denmark. The institute provides in-kind grants of up to €3 million for bridging translational studies in European academic institutions. For those projects that progress to a company build, a combination of convertible loans of €500K (Venture Lab) and then €1.3 million (Venture House) are made available to complete seed funding. As of January 2026, BII has supported over 130 early-stage life science and deep tech companies, with many attracting significant external funding. This month, there was news that Novo Nordisk has just plowed another $856 million of funding into BII.
The United States continues to dwarf other countries in its ability to galvanize preclinical biotech startups receiving seed or series A financing, with the UK a far second place (itself hosting double the number of startups of other non-US countries). Source: Haystack Science
Overall, in terms of the location of where most investment is occurring, our analysis reveals the capacity to host startups is expanding across the globe, with at least 19 countries hosting one preclinical startup that received funding in 2025. These countries were: USA, UK, France, Switzerland, China, The Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Spain, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, South Korea and Singapore. Perhaps the prominence of France as a location for preclinical therapeutic startups was most surprising from our sample. Interestingly, a lot of ex-US startups now also have a US (usually Cambridge, Mass.-based) headquarters. Digging deeper, 85 different cities around the world host a startup that obtained financing (pre-seed to series B) in 2025, with 20 cities hosting two or more. As expected, the Boston cluster led with 28 preclinical therapeutic startups, the Bay area hosted 19, and the UK’s Golden Triangle had 13. Of the following pack, some interesting standout cities were Paris, France (with 5 in our sample) and New York City (with 7), the latter long in the shadow of its Boston neighbor.
Cities hosting two or more startups that received seed or series A funding in 2025 (85 different cities hosted at least one biotech startup receiving financing). Boston and the Bay Area in the United States and the UK’s Golden Triangle (London, Cambridge and Oxford) are the most successful biotech clusters, far ahead of rest of the world. Source: Haystack Science
In terms of the disease areas attracting early-stage investor money, cancer dominates, comprising the focus for 34.4% of the funding raises. This is slightly lower than the biopharma sector as a whole, where cancer comprises up to 45% of pipelines. Following cancer, neurodegenerative disease, autoimmune disease and inflammatory disease all figured prominently. The uptick in deals for companies tackling CNS disorders has been a rolling theme recently, given the burden of neurodegenerative disease and dementia on public health systems and the paucity of disease-modifying treatments. With the continuing stampede around GLP-1s/incretins, there was also a healthy number of metabolic/ endocrine disease startups financed.
Disease focus of pre-seed, seed, series A and series B deals for preclinical startups tracked by Haystack Science in 2025. Source: Haystack Science
One last area we looked at was the type of therapeutic being financed by investment groups. Here again, the pharmaceutical industry’s traditional workhorse, the small molecule, remained pre-eminent in 2025, comprising 24% of financing deals in pre-seed, seed, series A and series B financings that were in the preclinical stage. Established modalities like monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were a common focus. And there was a resurgence of interest in recombinant proteins and peptides (likely boosted by the focus on incretins and the metabolic disease and obesity space). Of new modalities, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific and multispecific antibodies, antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), small-interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) immune cell (T cell and NK cells) also were to the fore, each making up around 6% of all the early-stage deals we tracked. A type of therapeutic gathering increasing attention is clearly the induced-proximity therapeutic sector (including the different flavors of PROTACs, DUBTACs and molecular glues). Finally, although a great deal has been mentioned about investor apathy for gene editing and gene therapy, these also captured 3-4% of the deals.
Type of therapeutic modality in preclinical startups receiving pre-seed, seed, series A and series B funding in 2025 that were tracked by Haystack Science. Source: Haystack Science
By Max Braht, Director of Business Development, LSN
The RESI (Redefining Every Stage of Investment) Conference Series, produced by Life Science Nation (LSN), has become a cornerstone event series for the early-stage life science ecosystem. Designed to bring together innovators, investors, and strategic partners, RESI offers a highly curated environment where capital formation, partnership development, and brand visibility intersect.
In 2026, the RESI Series continues its global reach through a combination of in-person conferences and structured virtual partnering, offering sponsors year-round exposure and repeated touchpoints with a highly targeted audience.
A Global Series Built for Impact
The 2026 RESI Series includes multiple events across major life science hubs:
RESI Europe 2026 – Lisbon, March 23 (with virtual partnering March 24–25)
RESI June at San Diego 2026 – June 22 (with virtual partnering June 23–24, 29)
RESI Boston 2026 – September 22–23 (with follow-up virtual partnering September 25, 28)
Across these events, RESI convenes companies spanning therapeutics, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and enabling technologies, alongside venture capital firms, family offices, strategic investors, and corporate partners. Sponsors benefit from consistent brand presence across the series while engaging with a community focused on early-stage innovation and investment readiness.
Why Organizations Sponsor RESI
RESI sponsorship is structured to go beyond logo placement. Sponsors are integrated into the fabric of the conference experience, with benefits that can include:
High-visibility branding across pre-event marketing, onsite signage, and digital platforms
Exhibit opportunities in high-traffic networking areas during in-person events
Thought-leadership placement, including workshops, moderated sessions, and published articles distributed to LSN’s global audience
Targeted networking and partnering, supported by RESI’s proprietary matchmaking platform
Post-event attendee access, enabling meaningful follow-up with investors, founders, and decision-makers
Tiered sponsorship options allow organizations to align their level of involvement with specific business development, visibility, or ecosystem-building goals, while optional add-ons provide further customization.
Who Benefits from Sponsoring RESI
RESI sponsorship is designed to support a wide range of organizations across the life science ecosystem. Sponsors consistently report value not only in exposure, but in the relevance and quality of connections made.
Service Providers
CROs, CDMOs, legal, IP, regulatory, manufacturing, data, and commercialization services (e.g., McDermot Will & Emery, Biometas)
Direct access to early-stage companies actively building pipelines and seeking partners
Visibility among founders, executives, and investors at key decision-making stages
Opportunities to demonstrate expertise through workshops, articles, and curated sessions
Organizations such as Medmarc exemplify the value of sustained participation. Their consistent presence across multiple RESI conferences has helped establish familiarity and trust with early-stage companies, positioning them as a known and credible partner as those companies progress from formation through later stages of growth.
Regional Organizations and Innovation Hubs
Economic development groups, accelerators, incubators, trade organizations, and government-backed initiatives (past sponsors include Brisbane Economic Development Agency (BEDA), Kobe Biomedical Innovation Cluster, (KBIC) and Israel Export Institute (IEI))
A global platform to showcase regional ecosystems and portfolio companies
The ability to host demo days, pitch sessions, or dedicated tracks aligned with regional priorities
Increased international exposure to investors and strategic partners
Investors and Strategic and Corporate Partners
Venture capital, corporate venture, family offices, and strategic partners (past sponsors include, Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), Johnson & Johnson Innovation JLABS, and Eli Lilly)
Targeted visibility among investment- or partnering-ready startups across multiple modalities
Access to curated partnering and company intelligence through the RESI platform
Opportunities to participate in panels, pitch sessions, and thought-leadership programming
Structured environments for scouting, relationship-building, and ecosystem engagement
Brand alignment with a trusted, innovation-focused conference series
Sponsor Spotlight: How Organizations Activated Their Presence at RESI JPM 2026
While RESI JPM 2026 has already taken place, it provides a strong example of how sponsors can actively engage with the RESI platform — not just through visibility, but through programming and participation that creates tangible value.
One notable example is Kobe Biomedical Innovation Cluster (KBIC), a Gold Sponsor of RESI JPM 2026. KBIC leveraged its sponsorship to host the Kansai Life Sciences Accelerator Program (KLSAP) Demo Day, a dedicated session that highlighted emerging life science companies from its accelerator cohort.
Through this activation, KBIC provided startups with direct access to international investors and strategic partners, while reinforcing its role as a global connector within the life science innovation ecosystem. Rather than serving as a passive sponsor, KBIC used the RESI platform to advance its mission, support portfolio companies, and foster cross-border collaboration.
Similarly, Trillium BIO capitalized on both the high foot traffic generated by its exhibit booth and RESI’s partnering platform to schedule a large number of targeted meetings for its team. By combining in-person visibility with structured partnering, Trillium BIO maximized engagement efficiency and ensured meaningful conversations with potential clients and partners throughout the event.
What Successful Sponsors Do Differently
Examples from RESI JPM illustrate several effective sponsorship strategies that carry forward across the 2026 Series:
They integrate into the program.
Sponsors that host workshops, demo days, or curated sessions create natural engagement opportunities and attract aligned audiences.
They align sponsorship with strategy.
Whether the goal is pipeline development, geographic expansion, or investor visibility, effective sponsors use RESI to support broader organizational objectives.
They prioritize connection over exposure alone.
By leveraging partnering tools, curated meetings, and live engagement opportunities, sponsors maximize the quality of interactions — not just the quantity.
Looking Ahead
As the RESI 2026 Series continues across Europe and the United States, sponsors can build sustained visibility while actively shaping conversations at the forefront of life science innovation. The success of sponsor activations at past events demonstrates that RESI is not simply a conference series but a platform for meaningful engagement, partnership building, and long-term impact within the global life science community.
For more information about sponsorship opportunities across the RESI 2026 Series, contact us at sales@lifesciencenation.com. We look forward to discussing your needs and exploring how RESI can support your goals.
On December 9, the Italian charity Fondazione Telethon made waves by becoming the first non-profit organization to obtain FDA approval for an advanced therapy: Waskyra (etuvetidigene autotemcel) is an ex vivo lentiviral gene therapy indicated for the rare immune deficiency Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome. Fondazione Telethon’s accomplishment underscores the impact that philanthropic organizations can have on drug discovery and has rightly been celebrated by patient-advocacy groups working to develop therapies for other conditions of limited commercial interest. How can this wider universe of disease foundations emulate Fondazione Telethon’s achievement and leverage the lessons from Waskyra’s approval?
Drug development for rare and ultra-rare conditions faces multiple challenges: limited understanding of the disease, paltry funding, a lack of business models providing a return on investment, regulatory obstacles, manufacturing and distribution barriers, and so on. For all these reasons, venture capitalists and pharma companies have shied away from diseases that, like Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome, affect small populations of patients. This is the unspoken dirty secret of modern medicine. Current commercial drug development is unfit for >90% of all known diseases.
According to an analysis of the Orphanet database, >80% of rare diseases affect <1 patients per million people (~0.5% of the total number of patients living with a rare disease). By contrast, ~4% of rare diseases affect 100–500 patients per million people (>80% of the total number of patients), enough to attract commercial interest. Source: Drug Discovery Today
With the biopharma industry steering clear of these conditions, patient advocacy groups and other charities are trying to fill the void. According to a recent study commissioned by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 585 advocacy groups fund “medical product development” activities in the United States. Why has it taken an Italian non-profit organization to be the first to cross the US FDA approval finish line?
The organization responsible for development of Waskyra is the San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy (SR-TIGET), a 30-year-old partnership between Telethon Foundation and Milan’s Ospedale San Raffaele. Over those three decades, SR-TIGET has raised over half a billion euros in philanthropic capital to build internal capabilities equivalent to those available in a clinical-stage biotech company: target discovery, preclinical modelling, regulatory strategy, phase 1/2 clinical trials and registration. In other words, unlike most patient foundations and groups, this organization has accumulated the resources to generate the data necessary to walk the full path to approval, independently of the need to collaborate with a pharmaceutical company.
Out of the 585 patient advocacy groups cited in the HHS report, only 11 operate with their own research staff and lab space. In contrast, 106 advocacy groups fund life-science companies, and 536 fund academic or medical institutions. This implies that, at most, only 1.9% of US patient groups use a model that shares at least some similarities with SR-TIGET’s. This is important to emphasize because having all these in-house capabilities makes an organization less dependent on industry partnerships, which can be difficult to secure in the first place and are subject to change if economic conditions and/or company priorities alter.
Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) use multiple types of arrangement to advance their missions, but only a small percentage conducts in-house research and/or clinical trials. As the categories are not mutually exclusive, individual advocacy groups may be included in multiple categories. Source: Lee, KM et al., May 2025
Of course, it would be disingenuous to expect all patient foundations to adopt the SR-TIGET model. According to the HHS report, the mean annual revenue of an advocacy group capable of funding clinical trials is ~$32 million, with their median annual revenue at ~$3.5 million. Most of the 585 charities have no hope of achieving these financing levels, particularly those advocating for patients living with ultra-rare conditions. At the same time, these figures represent the reality of commercial development, and they should be part of the calculus used by patient advocacy groups to define the scope of their activities and inform their fundraising strategy.
Mean (blue) and median (red) revenue of patient advocacy groups that fund medical research. As the categories are not mutually exclusive, individual organizations may be included in multiple categories. Source: Lee, KM et al., May 2025
It is worthwhile noting that Waskyra is not Fondazione Telethon’s first rodeo. SR-TIGET was responsible for much of the work behind two other approved ex vivo lentiviral gene therapies for ultrarare conditions: Strimvelis (for ADA-SCID; European approval in 2016) and Lenmeldy (for metachromatic leukodystrophy; European approval in 2020; FDA in 2024). In both cases, the organization partnered with for-profit companies to take the drugs to market, providing SR-TIGET with crucial training in the drug-approval process before they achieved their recent independent success with Waskyra. At the same time, those early experiences made it painfully clear that the story does not end with regulatory approval, as many without experience of developing medicines assume.
In 2018, Strimvelis, which had been developed by SR-TIGET in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline, was acquired by Orchard Therapeutics along with the rest of the pharma’s rare disease gene-therapy portfolio. After taking the therapy to approval, however, Orchard pulled the plug and decided to cease marketing of the therapy. Fondazione Telethon then stepped in and had to arrange the transfer of the marketing authorization from the company to the foundation. Although SR-TIGET has been able to make the therapy available in Italy, Strimvelis remains unavailable elsewhere in Europe. This is unsurprising as setting up distribution networks across continents requires deep expertise and investment, and has long been the sole purview of commercial organizations.
In the case of Waskyra, the manufacturing and distribution strategy for the United States is not yet clear, but a week after the FDA decision, Fondazione Telethon signed a memorandum of understanding with the Orphan Therapeutics Accelerator (OTXL) under which Orphan Therapies (an OTXL subsidiary) will become the exclusive commercialization partner for the therapy. OTXL is a separate, US-based, non-profit organization focused on the clinical development of “shelved” ultra-rare disease treatments. That two independent non-profit organizations have come together to deliver a life-changing therapy to patients is of great significance and perhaps underappreciated by the wider community. It will be interesting to see how this partnership evolves, particularly with regards to pricing.
Indeed, pricing has been another thorny issue for Fondazione Telethon. The cost of Strimvelis is reportedly ~€600K. Between July 2023 (when the foundation obtained the marketing authorization) and the end of 2024, SR-TIGET has treated only two ADA-SCID patients (~14 children are born every year with the disease in Europe). Of most concern, the associated costs for these two treatments were €4.7 million. Although Fondazione Telethon is a non-profit entity, multi-million Euro losses of this kind simply are unsustainable. It will therefore be important that the foundation sets a price of Waskyra on the US market where it can at least recoup the costs of its treatment — if not make a return that it can invest back in further R&D efforts.
Which brings us to perhaps the most important takeaway from SR-TIGET’s Waskyra approval. It is striking how this foundation has focused very heavily on the development of gene therapies, and in particular ex vivo lentiviral gene therapies. Luigi Naldini, leader of SR-TIGIT, is a pioneer in the study of lentiviral vectors, and a lot of the research conducted at the institute over the years has focused on the optimization of vectors and on understanding the biology of hematopoietic stem cells with the eventual goal of fixing disease-causing mutations. According to the SR-TIGET website, the organization has treated ~25% of patients who have received hematopoietic stem cell-based gene therapy worldwide.
In contrast, most patient groups have a starting point around a specific disease (or a subset of related diseases) for which drug-discovery projects are launched, often using multiple therapeutic modalities to have as many “shots on goal” as possible. These are two fundamentally different approaches. SR-TIGET has focused on one therapeutic modality and then deployed it across different diseases; most other foundations focus on one disease and then invest in many different therapeutic modalities.
Ultra-rare drug developers and patient groups should take note: an increasing body of data suggests that organizations achieving development success have adopted a similar platform-based approach to bringing therapeutics to patients. And the reason for this is simple: putting together an entire discovery, commercialization and distribution apparatus for more than one therapeutic modality is simply unaffordable for most independently funded non-profits.
Elsewhere, one might argue that, in base editing, we are also starting to see yet another example of a modality hub emerge. Following the success of base editing around CSP1 for baby KJ (highlighted in Issue #6 of The Needle), the Center for Pediatric CRISPR Cures is building a hub around gene editing R&D expertise — an initiative that the Innovative Genomics Institute’s Fyodor Urnov is also promoting.
What does all this mean? We would suggest that academic medical centers and patient foundations interested in developing ultrarare therapies should consider the platform-based approach as an efficient way to deploy their capital. Evidence is clearly building that focusing on one modality works. For therapies beyond that single modality, organizations might be better served by identifying another resource-rich ‘hub’ organization for development programs in their disease.
Another advantage of a large platform-based hub approach with a host of different disease spokes is that it would result in a diversified portfolio of projects in which each project is a separate shot on goal. This may achieve the scale to deliver a successful drug and, therefore, generate income. In fact, MIT economist Andrew Lo has used financial-engineering techniques to show that a portfolio of ultra-rare disease projects could generate a return on investment exclusively from the sale of FDA’s Priority Review Vouchers (PRVs), which pharma companies seek to acquire for a median >$100 million. Although the reauthorization of the PRV program by the US Congress is uncertain, we think this is a tantalizing insight because it points to a sustainable path for the development of ultra-rare therapies.
PRVs were created by the FDA to incentivize the development of treatments for rare pediatric diseases, allowing companies to get a faster regulatory review for any future drug. Crucially, PRVs can be sold to other firms. The graph shows the known prices that pharma companies have paid to acquire a PRV since they were launched. Source: BioSpace
2025 has been a landmark year for ultrarare therapies. Besides the FDA approval of Waskyra, the successful use of base editing to treat CPS1 deficiency in Baby KJ in just seven months, the acceptance of >160 patients into n-Lorem programs, and the administration of several gene therapies to ultrarare patients (Urbagen, an AAV-9 gene therapy for CTNNB1 syndrome being yet another recent example) suggest that ultrarare disease treatments are finally gaining momentum. With SR-TIGET, n-Lorem, Nationwide Children’s and Elpida showing the way, perhaps a development model is finally emerging to treat these debilitating childhood diseases that devastate too many families around the world.
The firm is focused on therapeutics companies and does not invest in medical devices, diagnostics, or digital health. The firm is open to considering assets of very early stages, even those as early as lead optimization phase. The firm considers various modalities, including antibodies, small molecules, and cell therapy. Currently, the firm is not interested in gene therapy. Indication-wise, the firm is most interested in oncology and autoimmune diseases but has recently looked at fibrotic diseases and certain rare diseases as well.
The firm is opportunistic across all subsectors of healthcare. Within MedTech, the firm is most interested in medical devices, artificial intelligence, robotics, and mobile health. The firm is seeking post-prototype innovations that are FDA cleared or are close to receiving clearance. Within therapeutics, the firm is interested in therapeutics for large disease markets such as oncology, neurology, and metabolic diseases. The firm is open to all modalities with a special interest in immunotherapy and cell therapy.
A strategic investment firm of a large global pharmaceutical makes investments ranging from $5 million to $30 million, acting either as a sole investor or within a syndicate. The firm is open to considering therapeutic opportunities globally, but only if the company is pursuing a market opportunity in the USA and is in dialogue with the US FDA.
The firm is currently looking for new investment opportunities in enterprise software, medical devices, and the healthcare IT space. The firm will invest in 510k devices and healthcare IT companies, and it is very opportunistic in terms of indications. In the past, the firm was active in medical device companies developing dental devices, endovascular innovation devices, and women’s health devices.
A venture capital firm founded in 2005 has multiple offices throughout Asia, New York, and San Diego. The firm has closed its fifth fund in 2017 and is currently raising a sixth fund, which the firm is targeting to be the largest fund to date. The firm continues to actively seek investment opportunities across a […]
Bram De Moor
Caitlin Dolegowski
Next Phase Newsletter 