ILB-3132

Literature evidence · DC67602

Formulation & Performance

The evidence below is specifically attributed to E12LA6B6O3 in WO2024198497A1. Particle properties, cellular reporter expression, mouse reporter studies and tumor growth are kept separate. Clinical platform results are not assigned to this catalog structure.

The patent identifier is E12LA6B6O3, using the letter O before the final 3. Example 2 and the catalog structure are consistent with C51H97NO9 and average molecular weight 868.335. Absolute tail stereochemistry is not assigned. The ILB-3132 alias-to-structure link remains unconfirmed in primary sources.

Formulation components and molecular-weight conversion

Component	DC Chemicals product	Molecular weight	Molar ratio	Mass at 1 µmol total lipid (mg)
E12LA6B6O3 (catalog structure)	DC67602	868.335	Not assigned	Not calculable from disclosed data
DSPC	DC57005	790.15	Not assigned	Not calculable from disclosed data
Cholesterol	DCD-041	386.65	Not assigned	Not calculable from disclosed data
DMG-PEG2000	DC40169	2507	Not assigned	Not calculable from disclosed data

The patent uses the named four-component system for reporter and OVA-mRNA experiments. The separate Example 40 series contains an unresolved discrepancy between the narrative and Table 4. The affected formulations must not be represented as a single verified recipe or used as a default calculator input.

Component mass calculator

Not all inputs are assigned to a single verified study formulation; unassigned fields are blank. Enter your own values to calculate a research scenario. Molecular weights and ratios are editable. Results are calculated, not measured study data. No N/P or RNA dose is inferred.

Total lipid (µmol)

Component	Mass (mg)	Mass %
E12LA6B6O3 (catalog structure)	—	—
DSPC	—	—
Cholesterol	—	—
DMG-PEG2000	—	—

Identity and evidence boundaries

Item	Finding	Implication
Patent compound	E12LA6B6O3, Example 2	Use the patent identifier beside patent-derived results
Catalog identity	Formula C51H97NO9; molecular weight 868.335	Matches the catalog structure; not proof of clinical-platform identity
Sponsor disclosure	MagicRNA describes ILB-3132 as a proprietary core lipid	The reviewed sponsor text does not disclose a structure that proves the E12LA6B6O3 alias
Clinical report	A 2025 NEJM letter reports a complete in vivo CAR-T platform	Its outcomes cannot establish clinical performance of this catalog structure

WO2024198497A1, Example 2; MagicRNA ASGCT announcement (April 30, 2025); Wang et al., NEJM 2025, DOI 10.1056/NEJMc2509522. The clinical supplementary appendix could not be retrieved for structure verification.

Measured particle attributes

Parameter	LNP-7 result	Source
Average diameter	75 nm	Table 1
PDI	0.08	Table 1
Encapsulation efficiency	98.26%	Table 1
Apparent pKa	Not established in the reviewed source	Do not infer from other lipids

WO2024198497A1, Example 36, Table 1, PDF p42 / printed p41. These are formulation-specific values, not batch specifications for the free lipid.

Cellular reporter-expression evidence

Assay	Reported signal	Interpretation
Primary mouse BMDCs, LNP-7 row	1.8 × 10^5	Table 2 reports reporter intensity; calibrated units are unstated
DLin-MC3 comparator	4.1 × 10^4	Within-table comparator; not an absolute transfection percentage
SM-102 comparator	1.0 × 10^5	Within-table comparator
Duplicate identifier	Another Table 2 row labels LNP-11 as E12LA6B6O3 with a different result	Do not combine the two rows or select the higher value as confirmed E12LA6B6O3 performance

Example 37, Table 2, PDF pp44–45 / printed pp43–44. Row identity inconsistency limits exact quantitative attribution.

Mouse reporter-expression evidence

Study	Reported result	Boundary
Intramuscular reporter study	E12LA6B6O3 signal: 2.2 × 10^9	Table 3, row 4; reported intensity without calibrated units
Comparators in the same table	DLin-MC3: 7.6 × 10^8; SM-102: 1.4 × 10^9	Reporter-expression comparisons only; not clinical efficacy
Separate intravenous series	Example 40 reports changes in expression across phospholipid variants	The narrative specifies 42.5% amino lipid whereas Table 4 prints 40%; do not combine this series with the intramuscular results

Example 38, Table 3, PDF pp45–46; Example 40, Tables 4–5, PDF pp47–48. Different routes and particle compositions are separate experiments.

Tumor-model findings and endpoint correction

Evidence	Supported interpretation	Not supported
B16-OVA mouse study	Figure 2 shows slower tumor growth for the E12LA6B6O3 formulation than for MC3	A claim that all tumors were eradicated
Figure 3	The axis and figure caption identify survival (%)	Survival cannot be relabelled as complete tumor regression
Text-versus-figure conflict	The narrative claims complete remission, but Figure 2 shows residual tumor growth and Figure 3 is survival	The product page must not repeat “100% complete tumor clearance”

Example 39; Figures 2–3, PDF p59 / drawing sheet 2 of 2. The A9 corrected text still retains the conflicting wording, so the discrepancy is unresolved.

Safety and remaining uncertainty

Topic	Current conclusion
Target-specific toxicity	No adequately characterized toxicity dataset was established for the exact patent compound in the reviewed examples
Clinical extrapolation	The safety of a clinical targeted nanoparticle cannot be assigned to this chemical structure without identity and formulation linkage
Reproducibility limits	Missing calibrated reporter units, duplicate table identifiers and the composition conflict limit cross-study comparisons

Do not describe this lipid as nontoxic or clinically validated on the basis of the reviewed evidence.