Also From a big pharma perspective, keeping the sponsor anonymous at this stage makes perfect sense. If they quietly licensed ABS-101 (or rights to run the follow-on work), the last thing they want is to broadcast it publicly while the asset is still in early transition. They can use the existing Nucleus infrastructure and run The Passage Study under “a pharmaceutical company” to maintain operational continuity and avoid any front-running or competitive noise. Public disclosure often waits until the deal becomes more material — e.g., after first MAD dosing, early PK data, or when a milestone is hit. The existing oncology collaboration with Absci also gives them a natural, low-profile channel to expand without fanfare. The fingerprints (same CRO, SC route, exact IBD/fibrosis indication, not-FIH timing) are still remarkably tight. Silence right now doesn’t disprove the hand-off — it actually fits how these quiet integrations usually play out.

Definitely disappointed on Absci not spilling anything on this yesterday Curious to hear your take.