Bruker at Leerink Conference: Navigating Challenges and Opportunities

On Wednesday, 12 March 2025, Bruker Corporation (NASDAQ: BRKR) participated in the Leerink Global Healthcare Conference 2025. The discussion, led by Frank Lachin of Bruker, highlighted both challenges and opportunities facing the company. While acknowledging potential downturns in the US academic market, Bruker remains optimistic about growth prospects, driven by innovations in spatial biology and strategic moves in global markets.

Key Takeaways

• Bruker faces potential revenue challenges due to US academic spending cuts, which could lead to a $30 million headwind.
• Growth opportunities are anticipated from increased spending in Germany on defense and fusion research.
• The company is leveraging its relationship with TSMC and advancements in spatial biology to drive future growth.
• Despite potential headwinds, Bruker expects to maintain a growth rate of 3% to 5%.
• The company is prepared to mitigate tariff impacts by adjusting its manufacturing operations.

Financial Results

• NIH-funded revenue constitutes 3% to 4% of Bruker’s total revenue.
• US academic and government spending accounts for 8% of the company’s revenue, with an 8% downturn translating to a $30 million impact.
• Even in a worst-case scenario of a 25% downturn in US academic revenue, Bruker anticipates a manageable 2% headwind on total revenue.
• The company continues to expect margin expansion, close to the previously guided 140 basis points.
• Bruker’s recurring revenue from consumables and software/services is approximately $1 billion annually.

Operational Updates

• Bruker has a backlog of about seven months, with positive trends in China and the biopharma sector.
• The company’s defense and homeland security detection equipment business has grown to a $50 million order run rate, with potential to increase further due to geopolitical factors.
• Fusion technology revenue currently stands at $25 million per year, with expectations of growth from fusion energy research.

Future Outlook

• Bruker is focusing on expanding its proteomics and spatial biology offerings.
• Investment in fusion power plant projects in Germany is viewed as beneficial.
• The company’s advanced packaging capabilities are expected to benefit from TSMC’s $100 billion investment in the US.

Q&A Highlights

• Analysts inquired about the impact of US academic market challenges and tariff implications.
• Discussions included the potential benefits from Germany’s stimulus plan for defense and fusion energy research.
• The CHIPS Act and its implications for Bruker’s timelines were also addressed, alongside advancements in spatial biology technologies like PainScape.

In conclusion, Bruker remains cautiously optimistic about navigating current challenges while capitalizing on new opportunities. For a deeper dive into the discussion, refer to the full transcript below.

Full transcript - Leerink Global Healthcare Conference 2025:

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Okay. All right. Great. Let’s get started. I’m Puneet Souda.

I cover life science tools and diagnostics here at Leerink. And, it’s my pleasure to be welcoming Frank Lachin from Bruker. Frank, great to have you at our conference.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Pleasure to be here. Thanks for the great conference and

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: the view. All right. Wonderful. So I think you’re already expecting the topic I’m going to talk about. It’s on everyone’s mind.

And when I look at it, first of all, I have to say, US academic ecosystem and biomedical research is truly number one in the world. So one wouldn’t want to lose that at the end of the day. So that, I think, has to be in the back of the mind for longer term and for participants. But maybe just on the NIH point, lot of discussions in February ’7 indirect cuts. The news every week is not exactly improving either if it’s Columbia or if it’s CSR or if it’s NIH intramural layoffs.

We just continue to get sort of series of negative news. But just maybe help us understand how you’re framing The U. S. Academic challenge here. It’s not just NIH.

Maybe just help us frame that. And how are you thinking about the orders and the sort of what you’re seeing in the current quarter just given the capital equipment, heavy capital equipment that you have?

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Right. Yes. Thank you, Puneet. This is micro you can all hear me, right? Yes.

Okay. So the way we frame that is that NIH funded revenue is only 3% to 4%, but that’s not the right measure. As you’ve said, all of US academia and government spending is about 8% of our revenue. Remember, there’s the other 92%. This is US academic spending in post genomic tools outside The US is strong.

China stimulus is stronger than what we had anticipated. I’m sure we’ll talk about that as well. Europe’s doing well, and, of course, non academic government is doing well. But back to the elephant in the room, US academia, 8%. We’re trying to model what that might mean.

I mean, it’s nice to last last year, we had two significant headwinds. Remember that? We had China as a significant headwind. China was slowing way down, and, and we also had biopharma slowing way down. So those those have both turned into tailwinds.

The US academic headwind this year, there is no certainty about how long and how deep that interruption or turbulence will be. I don’t think it’s not fully knowable. Right now, if you have the most pessimistic scenarios, you get the that’s the best clickbait out there. I don’t necessarily subscribe to that. Remodeling it, so for may maybe to your earlier remark, I I think there is no evidence whatsoever from RFK Jr, from the Jay Patacharya confirmation hearings, from the Marty Macquarie confirmation hearings, that anybody wants to dismantle The US preeminence in biopharma or in US academic life science and disease research.

So I think whatever we’re looking at here, I think, is a temporary disruption and turbulence this year. It’s pretty significant turbulence right now, Gets amplified at conferences like this, but I don’t think it’s fundamental. I think by my my outlook for ’twenty six and beyond doesn’t change at all, but ’twenty five is a question mark. 4.25, we’re presently modeling as the most probable scenario something like an 8% downturn. So now you’ve heard the number eight coincidentally twice, 8% downturn on 8% of our revenue.

That might be about 30,000,000 this year. That type of revenue headwind, we could accommodate within our existing guidance. We might this might then because I had you know, you have a lot of conservatism built into the guidance. That conservatism and upside, therefore, may be challenged. Right?

This might not be the the the year for beats and for beats and raises in guidance. And you could also argue that, you know, this could be pushing us towards the low end of our guidance. That’s what we probably regard as guidance and ours the most probable scenario. Then invariably at today at the conference, at another conference yesterday and and and last week in Boston, people ask, well, what could be the worst case scenario? So and then they you you model or you ask what could with us with having seven months plus of backlog and so on, a worst case but pretty unlikely scenario in our opinion, is that but it helps in ring fencing the issue, would be that US academic that 8% of our revenue, what if that came down 25%?

So that’s not our guidance, although some people have misinterpreted that. And there’s some notes out there that have misconstrued that even though I’ve been incredibly precise and and will again be very precise that that’s a good modeling exercise because with that modeling exercise, that’s easy numbers. That would take 2% that would be a 2% headwind to our revenue. That would be about 75,000,000 or they’re about $7,075,000,000. That would mean still growth for Brooker.

Instead of 5% to 7% constant exchange rate revenue growth this year, it would imply 3% to 5%. And that would still mean very significant margin expansion, hopefully at or very close to the 140 bps that we’ve baked in right now because that was a quite conservative number. And that also would still mean very significant EPS growth, you know, perhaps near the low end or near the low end. Because this isn’t guidance, we haven’t modeled through all these scenarios, and I will not because there is no data to support the 25% or is it 15% or is it 8% or is it more benign than that? Last but not least, even within this year, there is a timing element.

There is gonna be some delays, but these budgets have not been taken away from NIH. What are they gonna do with these budgets where they have delayed grants? Is there going to be a significant budget flush with orders in August, September? That’s also a plausible scenario, but nobody quite knows. For us, admittedly, that would probably make for a strong Q4, but some of that revenue would then also go into the first half of next year.

So ironically, it could strengthen next year and weaken ’25. It’s unclear to me to see I don’t see any scenario where these budgets complete. I I could see we can imagine anything, but it doesn’t seem likely that approved budgets for NIH would not be spent at all, but some of that could shift into next year. So that’s, I think, the different angles on this topic.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Okay. No. That’s that’s very helpful. Maybe on the point of 8% reduction, maybe can you clarify? I mean, this is isn’t this time more different than the COVID times?

Obviously, we saw sharp decline there, somewhat of a freezing. There weren’t these anxiety prone researchers and labs, and they’re just a constant sort of drumbeat of negative news. It was just frozen type of situation, and people were then trying to return back to the labs. When they did, they ordered those products. So maybe there was a little bit it seems like there was more certainty.

Just wanted to understand sort of thinking behind the 8%.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Well, in March 2020, there wasn’t more certainty either, right, by later in the year, then there was some more certainty and people began to figure it out. But it took a couple of quarters to get from extreme scenarios to, okay, more a narrower range of scenarios. Not that everybody then knew the future, but, you know, from this extreme uncertainty, which is somewhat comparable psychologically with what we have right now, this extreme uncertainty and turbulence. In this particular segment, I think there’s there’s some analogy. Of course, it’s not an exact comparison, which is why the 8% isn’t, this isn’t a precise figure.

It could be 5%. It could be 12%. But it gives you a range. Right? So having said that, you know, a company that has seven months of backlog now seven months of backlog in revenue really means it’s more like ten months of instruments backlog, and we also have a billion per year of revenue that is recurring in consumables and software and services.

Most of that goes forward, but I understand from, I guess, Techni’s CFO made a comment yesterday and I know from privately held ProMEGA, that indeed, there is a reduction in in spending on consumables on life science. That’s obviously those those guys would notice that first, And that’s not surprising. Right? That’s totally to be expected that that might be down. I don’t know what it is down.

You know, it makes it down 10% or something like that. I’ve seen various universities who tell all of their departments, hey. We’re gonna have a hiring freeze for staff, not for faculty necessarily, and every department has to cut their budgets or their spending this year by five or by 10%. Well, you know, so that that those are those are reasonable numbers. Nobody has said 40%, by the way, so I don’t see that anywhere either.

So the numbers that come out of that anecdotal various universities doing cost cutting, it’s in that high single digit range, which again supports a high single digit assumption. Although it may be dampened for us, maybe for companies with consumables, it is down 8% or 10%. Maybe for a company that has backlog of over seven months, maybe it’s done less than than that. This tends to dampen upswings. It also tends to dampen a one or two quarter, you know, dip if it is a four quarter dip, which I wouldn’t which I would not expect because it is correct that these budgets have been approved.

I don’t think Jay Bhattacharya will get confirmed and say, hey, great. I’m gonna give these 4,000,000,000 back to the treasury. He’ll probably say, but I don’t know. Once confirmed, which might be soon, his senate hearings look reasonable. Okay, guys.

Let’s let’s get this out, and then we can ask for a increase in spending for with a focus on chronic diseases, which is what RFK Jr. Wants to tackle. All things that we neurodegeneration, autoimmunity, cancer, these are all examples. There’s other chronic diseases, all things where our tools would be very, very applicable for disease research. So I think this is completely overblown and this this people freaking out and going to whoever gives them the the lowest number and the scariest number.

I mean, this is this this does attract clicks, but I think it’s I think it’s bullshit. You can quote me on that.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Okay. Alright. That’s very clear. Okay. So maybe just, you know, then then then switching gears to the potential.

There was some news on the German side in terms of the Chancellor talking about potential incoming German spending defense on the defensive spending side and fusion research in Germany. Maybe just help us understand sort of how large that opportunity it doesn’t look like it’s going to be this year, but maybe just help us understand sort of the timing of that.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Right. It’s going to be for the next three, four years. It’s not going to be this year. But at a very high level, indeed, this isn’t an approved plan yet. This is the coalition exploratory talks and agreements among the two slash three parties that are likely to form the next German governing coalition that should come together in about a month under presumed new chancellor, Friedrich Merz.

Actually, at a very high level, very encouraging, that guy, because he has also been in industry. He, for the first time in three decades in Germany, I I can complain because I’m from Germany originally, there’s really anything that resembles an innovation strategy or an interest in an innovation strategy, something that Germany just hasn’t had. They don’t even have r and d tax credits and things like that that all other European countries have, The US, of course. Anyway, so investment in innovation and r and d was part of this proposed $500,000,000,000 they don’t call it stimulus. Initially, it was geared at defense and and and beefing up defense spending, which had been neglected for a long time in Germany.

And then in became a broader infrastructure and innovation $500,000,000 package $500,000,000,000 package, presumably for the next four years that this government will will will be be in power before the next elections. Defense spending is is is good. Even that might modestly benefit Bruker. We we don’t talk about it very much, but we do we don’t we don’t have anything that shoots, but we have stuff that measures. So we have defense and homeland security detection equipment about a 50 that business from from being smaller has grown to about 50,000,000 in order run rates because of the Ukraine.

And that business, which has very good margins, mostly sells into Europe, not only into Germany, into Finland, you know, Czech Republic, Romania, all sorts of customers in Europe that are beefing up their defense detection capabilities. And we think that business could, you know, over the next three or four years, perhaps go from 50 to 75 to a hundred million. Not hugely moving needle moving, but but yet another one of these healthy growth drivers at Bruker that comes out of technologies. The second part, which was fusion energy, why would I care about that? It actually turns out that Bruker, in our best segment Mhmm.

And its research instruments subsidiary as well as the superconducting materials we make in in invest, has had of the order or more than a hundred million dollars cumulatively, not per year, of fusion related technology revenue or contracts. A lot of that goes into ITER, but some some of that also goes into German Wendelstein and similar plasma physics projects that are all fusion related. Some of that goes to China. Some of them goes to The UK, etcetera. So, it turns out that if fusion energy does take off with more research funding, which was specifically highlighted in this positioning paper, and then the actually strategic proposal that surprised us, I mean, I was thrilled to read it, that Mertz and his imminent coalition highlighted that Germany wanted to build the first fusion power plant in the world.

Wow. That’s a that’s a cool proposition. Right? Now other countries have the same plans, but at least there there is a there is a goal and there presumably would be prioritized funding for that. That could be quite beneficial, not only in Germany, but in Europe and and and to some extent also The US and Asia, for for for Bruker.

As I said right now, that well, a hundred million cumulatively right now, that’s about 25,000,000 or so of revenues per year. Again, good margins that we have. That could, of course, very dramatically increase. It won’t none of that will happen in ’twenty five. But again, this research spending and pilot project technology could could could really be beneficial over the next four years.

Until 10,000,000,000 fusion power plants and 200 of them are being built in Europe, that’s gonna be quite a while. But even during that ramp up period as many country programs and then the 40 to 50 startups in the world, most of which are pursuing magnetic confinement fusion need. These plasma heating and diverter and cryo pumps and superconducting materials tools, that could be a very, very just a little bit like semiconductor kept came came up for AI in a few years ago. That’s that’s a techno a set of technologies that could over time also grow. I mean, it could become a hundred, 200,000,000 business over, you know, five to ten years.

But but it’s there already, so it was nice. The most imminent thing that I think would benefit us in this new program is the innovation in r and d, and they didn’t specify proteomics or spatial biology, unfortunately, because it’s too high level. That’ll take a year to turn into specific programs, which ministry gets what, and then how do they allocate it. Germany has an excellent track record of being one of the highest biggest investors early on in proteomics and in related technologies. So I think they get the post genomic era.

So it bodes well at a very high level in terms of messaging for programs that will benefit this life science spend on the post genomic era, this next chapter in life science and disease research Sure. For which we’ve rebuilt the transformation of Bruker as you as you very well understand that.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Indeed. The question around Europe, the other question that we’re getting in as you one you would have expected it just given the challenges that we’re seeing, we’re in the news in terms of steel, aluminum, other tariffs, to what extent those tariffs extend into instrumentation. You obviously use a lot of, I mean, if I could say, wires and things and capabilities that you have in order to manufacture in Europe. Your presence, I believe, BioSpin Khaled presence in manufacturing, correct me if I’m wrong, it’s Germany or and maybe it’s in Switzerland as well. Maybe just help us understand if there were further tariffs, things go back and forth in maybe in some situations.

Help us understand the dynamic and how much tariff how much exposure do you have there?

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Yeah. It’s multifaceted. So I’ll take a couple of minutes. So first of all, Mexico, China doesn’t affect us, in in

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Mexico, Canada, you mean?

Frank Lachin, Bruker: What is it? Mexico, Canada. Thank you. I misspoke. Thank you.

Thanks for yeah. Mexico and Canada doesn’t really it doesn’t affect us. China, we have an exceptionally beneficial set up there, and we don’t manufacture and for our final test anything in China. We manufacture in The US, in Penang, Malaysia, and in Europe, but not in China. So we’re not importing anything that’s affected by these increasing tariffs by The US on things imported from China.

Mhmm. China will have retaliatory tariffs, but of what we broker sell into China, Ninety Percent comes from Europe or from Malaysia, and only 10% comes from The US and could therefore be subject to the increasing Chinese tariffs on US made goods. To your Europe question, so the the post to truth social that I had seen from a cabinet meeting at some point by Trump was on tariffs on the European Union. So first of all, Switzerland is not part of the European Union, And a very big part, essentially, all of our NMR business all of our NMR business, not some of our MRI and EPR business, although they could also come out of Switzerland very easily, comes from Switzerland, which, with their Swiss neutrality, does not seem to be implicated because they’re not European Union. So that might be a good guy.

That’s a big chunk. Yeah. The things that do come out of the European Union, mass spectrometers, X-ray equipment, you know, things that we make in Mhmm. Mostly in Germany, but also in France and Belgium, that’s all European Union. So if you look at tariffs on are there any European Union tariffs on scientific equipment made in America and coming into Europe?

And there are none none that I’m aware of. It’s not like pickup trucks or SUVs or steel or aluminum. There there aren’t any. So there shouldn’t be any retaliatory tariffs against that. Now it could be broader brush.

Right? Maybe they’ll say, well, equipment coming in from the European Union, that could be very broad, and that then could also include, Bruker Scientific Equipment coming into The US. So there I have, we’re not doing anything at the moment because this is also unclear. There I have reasonable agility because we used to make x-ray equipment in Madison, Wisconsin. Now it all comes from Karlsruhe, Germany, but we could go back.

We already have the facility there. And could for The US market, I wouldn’t move all my global manufacturing, but for The US market, I could move it back to Wisconsin. And mass spectrometry and NMR, NMR comes out of Switzerland, but both of those used to be also made in Massachusetts at our Billerica headquarters sites. That’s where we did all the MALDI biotipers. So we and and we have a big mass spec r and d footprint.

So we could we could bring our mass spec to Massachusetts and even if needed, our Swiss NMRs to Massachusetts because we used to do final test over there. That doesn’t happen overnight, but it also doesn’t take so it probably would take, you know, maybe ten, twenty million in CapEx that are we’re presently not planning, and it could take us maybe two or three quarters with rehiring and resetting everything up appropriately. But that’s very different from, oh my god, I need a couple of hundred million in a greenfield side, and this will take me two or three years to execute. So we have reasonable agility there. And we have all the x-ray, NMR, mass spec experience on these sites, that we that we could pull it off.

And we still have manufacturing and and and even FDA regulatory systems in these sites. So we we could move it within a few quarters. But we’re not doing that right now because you don’t know what to solve for. Right?

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: That’s right.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Some some of these things get talked about, then they get talked down, then they then, you know, maybe maybe they will focus on cars and pickup trucks and aluminum and not on scientific equipment because US scientific equipment faces no tariffs in Europe, in the European Union at least. So longish answer because there’s a lot of moving pieces or a lot of presently nonmoving pieces. Overall, I think that’s a pretty favorable and agile setup even with respect to Europe having such a big part in Switzerland.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Yeah. What was, can you just remind us your total European exposure overall? And, I don’t know if there’s a way to fragment that into Germany versus Swiss. But

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Well, so different ways of saying that. I maybe that’s not what you’re asking. But revenue wise, Europe tends to be about one third. Right?

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Mhmm.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: I mean, very roughly, Europe, The Americas, and Asia Pacific are each at 30% to 33%, and then we have, like, 4%, five % Mhmm. You know, other Latin America, India, Middle East or so. So that’s the revenue exposure in terms of r and d and manufacturing Europe, but Europe, including Switzerland, which is not European Union, is more than 50% of manufacturing. The European EU only is probably 30 to 40% because Swiss Switzerland is a very large piece. By the way, I could also move my mass spec production to Switzerland because the Tim’s cartridges and the LCs and a lot of the, Tim’s Omni development are already happening in Switzerland with Swiss IP and have the facilities there also to say, okay, all Tim’s toughs for The US.

Rather than coming from Bremen, Germany, they would now come from Zurich or near Zurich, Switzerland. That also would be a relatively two quarter changer. So with facilities and experience and know how their manufacturing systems all there, they don’t have to be created. Again, this is a fair amount of agility that allows us to respond to whatever the political and and tariff developments might be.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Yeah. So a number of ways to address, but it it’s gonna take it could take some time, two or three quarters. Yeah.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Yeah. But, yeah, it doesn’t take two or three years, And it doesn’t take hundreds of millions. It may take, you know, maybe $10,000,000, 20 million dollars in CapEx to refurbish those sites to set them up for. And I would move all of production. I would move production for The U.

S. Market. That’s about 23% of our revenue. Got it. Okay.

Just Lots of details.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: No. I appreciate all that. And just given the since majority of discussion is still on macro, just on the Chipsat Act, there’s some discussions of sort of rebranding it maybe. Again, it seems like technologies are still very much important to White House and given the presence and the dominance of U. S.

And that, maybe just does that are you hearing anything on that front? Does that change any timelines in the way you provide your extra equipment into these facilities? And also maybe along the way, if you could talk about AI, if you’re seeing any change in the sort of the demand dynamics there that you supply into some of the GPUs, I mean, products that end end up building those.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: I can bundle the answers because they’re tightly related. They’re cloud closely related to TMSC and chips and packaging. Let me explain. So, the the swipe against the Chips Act, we’ve noticed, and quite honestly, we don’t know what that means, but we we so noted. Very clearly, there was this I assume it was at the White House announcement with The US President and and the leadership of TMSC, that TMSC, in addition to their significant investment in Arizona that they’ve started a few years ago and were were plugged in, that they would spend an extra 100,000,000,000 in The US.

I would assume that’s like a five year time frame. So, you know, it’s not gonna be over two or three years, but because you can’t spend it that fast even. Although they are a company that moves at remarkable speed. We are that’s really good news for Bruker. We are plugged more into TMSC because they need the most advanced semiconductor metrology equipment for smaller nodes, more layers, more more more metallic layers in chips, but but also more stacking where, you know, going into three dimensions on on memory or or particularly in this case, GPU chips.

They make all the advanced chips for AI, others trying to get into that, but it’s almost all GMSE right now. And they completely you they they you we’re very, very deeply entrenched in that in in Taiwan. Mhmm. And also in the advanced packaging, because that was one of the sub headlines that people probably didn’t pay attention to. As part of that hundred billion investment, they also would bring advanced packaging into The US, which is also very good news.

There’s really only two companies, KLA Tencor and us, that have the white line interferometry advanced equipment. We think we have the best, which is why we’ve been selected typically by TMSC for advanced packaging. So in addition to more chips in The US, also bringing advanced packaging, TMSC packaging, that was music to our ears. As you can imagine, that would bode well for, I don’t know, orders maybe 26, 20 seven deliveries, 27, eight, nine, etcetera. So, very, very, very good trend there.

And and focusing on TMSC is smart. I mean, they’re far ahead of Samsung, and they’re way, way far ahead of Intel and and many other chip manufacturers, particularly for this high performance computing, which supports AI. We we see that trend unbroken.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Got it. Listen, the given the all the questions that we have been we have unfortunately didn’t get enough time to touch into, you know, or touch base into the the proteomics, the neck postgenomics era, but maybe at a high level.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: We still do that.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Yeah. We you do plenty of that, and that’s why we have another conference where we spend a lot more time on that.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: That’s right. Yes.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Maybe just at a high level, I mean, I saw you at AGBT. You know, one of the products that really, you know, was interesting at AGBT for a lot of folks was the for from a customer size was PaintScape.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Yes. That’s

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: an, you know, an evolution. You’re you’re it’s a new innovation in that space. Maybe just talk to us about that and overall, you know, if there are any any any thoughts on the spatial side that, that that, you know, that you would like to add.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: I mean, Bruker, without any question, I think it’s just objectively had by far the most product announcements in spatial biology from further improvements in the Cellscape spatial proteomics, which now has much higher flexibility in in antibodies that you can select, which has higher throughput and, and and and can really do plexing without damaging tissue or epitope, something nobody else can really do. I think we’re in the premier product position there. We now have the NanoString channel, and and Cellscape is now growing very rapidly. Big announcements on the whole transcriptome, from on the Cosmix from the old NanoString, and we still use that brand name. It’s just very recognizable in within Bruker Spatial Biology.

On the plexing side, being able to scale to a full transcriptome, which is about 19,000 transcripts, is absolutely remarkable. The other system on the market really is good at one to two k, and they claim they can five k, but it just doesn’t scale. Their rolling circle amplification or RCA does not scale and becomes very inefficient. When people have shown what they can actually measure I mean, these are just headline numbers. When you measure with a five k or six k set, you don’t measure each one.

You measure some of them. It turns out we could measure three to five times more for comparable plexing. We’ve now rolled that to the next level. I think it is almost an unfair advantage now at the in their spatial transcriptomics battles. And then, yes, PainScape is a brand new thing.

That’s a completely new technology. That’s the type of technologies academia will invest in because they can answer new cancer biology and infectious disease and just basic cell and and genome biology questions. You could never address the genome isn’t just a long sequence string, 1D string. It has three-dimensional position. It has three-dimensional interactions.

It has a lot of stuff going on that we all thought, my god, that’s gotta be cancer and a nuclei or a translocation or extra cellular DNA all of a sudden showing up chromosomes in the nucleus. Turns out, wow, this stuff is all there all the time, and we we we really had no idea. And some of it will be cancer, and some of it, the immune system will be taken care care care of hopefully. And some of that is just new new new windows into into into genome biology. So very, very exciting, very big drivers, at some point when we get back to those fundamentals.

Yeah. That that that bodes really well for that entire Bruker spatial biology, including NanoString, to see very good growth and good margin growth with good pricing power because these tools are way ahead or completely unique.

Puneet Souda, Analyst, Leerink: Okay. We’ll look forward to that later. But thank you again, Frank, for over time, but I really appreciate the input here.

Frank Lachin, Bruker: Thank you all very much.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.