Good afternoon and welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Cytokinetics Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2011 Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I will now turn the call over to Ms. Sharon Barbari, Cytokinetics' Executive Vice President of Finance and CFO.

Good afternoon and thank you for joining the Cytokinetics' senior management team on this conference call today. Also present during this call are Robert Blum, our President and Chief Executive Officer; and Dr. Andrew Wolff, Senior Vice President of Clinical Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer. Following the forward-looking statement disclaimer, Robert will provide an overview of the past quarter along with recent highlights on the advancement of our clinical development pipeline. Andy will then provide details on the progress of the company's clinical development programs. I will provide some brief comments with respect to our cash position and our investment in research and development activities and our 2012 financial guidance. Robert will then conclude the call with additional comments, our next steps for our development stage programs omecamtiv mecarbil and CK-2017357, which we'll refer to as CK-357 and a and discussion of the projected company milestones for 2012. We'll then open the call for a brief question-and-answer session. The following discussion, including our responses to questions, contain statements that constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including but not limited to statements relating to our financial guidance, to the initiation, enrollment, design, conduct and results of clinical trials and to other research and development activities. Our actual results might differ materially from those projected in these forward-looking-statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those in these forward-looking statements is contained in our SEC filings, including our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and our current reports on Form 8-K. Copies of these documents may be obtained from the SEC or by visiting the Investors Relations section of our website. These forward-looking statements speak only as of today. You should not rely on them as representing our views in the future. We undertake no obligation to update these statements after this call. I'll now turn the call over to Robert.

Thank you, Sharon. Since our last quarterly call, we have made important progress in advancing both of our Phase II clinical trial programs. With respect to our skeletal muscle activator program, we presented key tolerability data regarding our lead drug candidate CK-357 at the ALS/MND Symposium in December in Sydney, Australia. We believe these results from Part A of our Phase II multiple-dose trial in patients with ALS are encouraging, as Andy will elaborate in a moment. These data further build upon our enthusiasm for the potential of this drug candidate in the treatment of ALS, as we prepare for the next steps in the CK-357 clinical development program and move towards potential registration studies. In parallel with our progressing CK-357, Cytokinetics clinical research teams also continue to collaborate with our partner, Amgen, on the ongoing Phase IIb clinical trial of our novel cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil. As you'll hear shortly, we anticipate that Amgen will continue to advance this drug candidate into additional studies. Moreover, on the research front, we are pleased to announce that in the last quarter we expanded our joint research activities with Amgen directed to next-generation compounds in our cardiac muscle contractility program. Now, I'd like to turn the call over to Andy to elaborate on the specific progress that we have achieved in our clinical development programs since our last teleconference.

Thank you, Robert. As Robert mentioned, we progressed the clinical development of our lead skeletal muscle activator drug candidate, CK-357, during the fourth quarter with the completion of Part A of our Phase II multiple-dose trial, CY 4024, and the presentation of key tolerability data from that study. Part A of this trial was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multiple-dose clinical trial designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of 14 days dosing of CK-357 in 24 patients with ALS who were not concurrently receiving riluzole. We conducted this trial to better understand the adverse event of dizziness, which we observed in ALS patients after a single dose of CK-357 in our Phase IIa Evidence of Effect study which we presented in December 2010. Now, in Part A of CY 4024, we found that CK-357 appeared well tolerated as a single agent after 3 dose levels we evaluated, 125 mg, 250 mg and 375 mg daily. The incidence and persistence of dizziness appeared dose-related, but was mild in severity in all patients who completed the study drug treatment. Most importantly, most reports of dizziness began early after initiation of treatment and resolved spontaneously within the first week. No serious adverse events were reported. Although the trial lacked the statistical power to detect significant differences in parameters of clinical effectiveness, trends to improve the clinical outcome measures were observed. These improvements were observed especially after the highest dose of 375 mg daily. Four of 5 patients who completed treatment in this dose group reported improvement in their global assessments. And 3 of these 5 patients improved at least 1 point on the revised ALS functional rating scale or ALSFRS-R. The changes observed in maximum voluntary ventilation after 2 weeks of dosing of 375 mg compared favorably to improvements observed at…

As our press release contains detailed financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended 2011, I'll refer you to that public statement for the details on our P&L and balance sheet. We ended the fourth quarter with approximately $49 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments, excluding restricted cash, which represents approximately 15 months of going forwards net cash burns based on our 2012 financial guidance which will follow. Our fourth quarter 2011 R&D expenditures totaled $8.5 million. From a program perspective for the fourth quarter approximately 64% of our R&D expenses were attributable to our skeletal muscle contractility research and development activities, 8% to our cardiac muscle contractility activities and 16% to our smooth muscle contractility activities and 12% to our other research activities. For the 12-months ended December 31, 2011 our R&D expenditures totaled $37.2 million. And from a program perspective for the 12-months approximately 64% of our R&D expenses were attributable to our skeletal muscle contractility activities, 7% to our cardiac muscle contractility activities, 15% to our smooth muscle contractility activities and 13% to our other research activities. We continue to focus our financial resources largely under progression of our skeletal muscle contractility research and development program. We believe that this program together with our cardiac muscle contractility program that is partnered with Amgen represents opportunities for the nearest term value generation for the company that Robert, will outline in a moment with the milestones for 2012. Today we are announcing financial guidance for 2012. We anticipate our 2012 revenue to be in the range of $4 million to $5 million. Our cash R&D expenses are anticipated to be in the range of $30 million to $33 million, and our cash G&A expenses to be in the range of $11 million to $12 million. This financial guidance is on a cash basis and does not include an estimated $4.7 million in non-cash operating expenses primarily related to stock compensation expense. In addition, this guidance does not reflect potential revenue from potential collaborations with other partners. This current guidance reflects an approximate 10% reduction in cash burn as compared to our 2011 actual financial. That concludes the financial portion of today's call. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Robert.

Thank you, Sharon. In reference to the guidance, in the past quarter, we have taken steps to respond to our financial landscape and further adapt our company to current priorities and opportunities. Last year, we made a very difficult decision to restructure our workforce and focus our resources on our later-stage development programs for CK-357 and omecamtiv mecarbil. In addition, we sought out collaborations that enabled the company to offset certain research costs. Two recent examples of that form of research collaboration are our continued research with Amgen announced today and our agreement with Global Blood Targeting announced on our Q3 call. We are contemplating other agreements of this type as they further contribute to the sponsorship of our research organization and as may further reduce our net operating cost. In addition to the advancement of our clinical stage development programs that Andy described, we continue to conduct IND-enabling studies of CK-2127107 or CK-107. As mentioned in our Q3 call, our scientists optimized this potential drug candidate from a different chemical series than that which yielded CK-357. We believe that moving another compounds on the skeletal program into development may further benefit our partnering activities and expand the potential array of indications for evaluation with our novel mechanism, skeletal muscle activators. Before I update you on our expected corporate milestones in 2012, I'll emphasize that our top priorities at Cytokinetics continue to be the partnering of our skeletal muscle activator program and the generating of data from our ongoing Phase II trials of CK-357 in ALS and which are intended to inform a potential registration program. I continue to be optimistic about our delivering on these key company priorities and look forward to sharing additional details as appropriate. Now, let me turn to the milestones for 2012. For omecamtiv mecarbil,…

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from the line of Charles Duncan with JMP Securities.

Robert, I had a couple of questions, first of all on 357. I'm wondering if you can give us an update on the partnering discussions that might be ongoing. I'm wondering if it would be prudent of us to expect those to come to fruition after meeting with the U.S. and European regulators. Would it be your intent to do a partnership before you enter into pivotal studies for 357?

So let me take those one at a time. Firstly, the partnering discussions continue and they continue well and we are in advanced discussions. As we discussed when you and I were together in January and as we discussed also publicly, I would not take for the fact we did not yet announce a deal that those discussions haven't anyway gone south. In fact, they continue to progress well, as I just mentioned. As far as the timing, I probably can't comment to that to your satisfaction on a call like this or otherwise. And instead, I'll just have to ask you to be patient. But what I would say is that we don't have any reason to believe that any of the potential partners with whom we're in discussions are awaiting any additional clinical trials' data or for that matter are expecting to differ on signing a deal until such time as we've had those regulatory discussions. In fact to your last question, our assumption is that we're proceeding with those also in parallel and that a deal can be getable before such time as we're making those final preparations for movement into registration studies.

So it's not that they are looking for the data out of 4025 or anything and it's not that they're waiting for outcome of those regulatory discussions in terms of pivotal developments, just really getting a deal done between now and then?

I think that's right, although I'll caveat that statement, Charles, by saying that I can't speak for them and I don't know all of what's going on internal to each of these companies. But what I can say is I don't have any reason to believe that, that what would be in the calculus for doing a deal.

Could you provide us a little bit more color on the platform presentation that you're talking about with regard to 357 and ALS? Is that going to be one that's focused more on the disease data or specific mechanisms and potential advantage differentiation?

It will be the data from Part B of CY 4024. So it will be very similar to what we presented in Sydney in December, because the design of Part B is identical to that of Part A, except for in Part A the patients were not receiving riluzole, and in Part B they will be. We also will be able to analyze certain of the efficacy variables of the 2 put together. It's too small to do this definitively, but certainly we'd be able to see if there are any major trends towards differences in efficacy with and without riluzole, which I'll point out we certainly wouldn't expect because riluzole has never been shown to have any effect on any functional assessment in ALS. So we'll have those data. And also, we'll be able to see if there are any major differences in tolerability of either riluzole or 357 when they're dosed together. So I think it will be very informative incremental data to what you saw in December.

Yes, just to add to that, Charles, in as much as it's a platform presentation, that's not meant to imply that it's about the disease state. This is a higher profile presentation for these critical trial data.

My last question is also on 357. You mentioned myasthenia gravis and enrollment timelines. Do you think that the slower enrollment than expected is a function of patient availability or something that reflects the enthusiasm of the investigator?

I'll start it and then turn it over to Andy. I don't think it's at all related to any change in the enthusiasm relating to CK-357 in this population. Rather instead, I think there is some logistical issue associated with identifying some of the patients as maybe Andrew can elaborate.

The investigators are enthusiastic, but I think what this really highlights is the difference in the patient experience between ALS where we continue to enroll our studies pretty rapidly in myasthenia gravis. And that comes down to the fact that for ALS, there is no treatment that improves functional status at all, really as you know only prolongs life, but has never been shown to have any effect on functions. So those patients are extremely motivated to come into the trial. While the scientific rationale to support the use of 357 in myasthenia gravis is equally strong, you have to recognize that the disease itself is just not as dire. There are treatments namely steroids and cholinesterase inhibitors. They do improve strength. They have tolerability issues which maybe an advantage for 357, but these are people that by and large are functional, they have jobs, they go to work and it's just a lot more difficult to get them to come into a clinical trial than the unfortunate patients with ALS who are truly desperate for some sort of relief even if it's only temporary.

Your next question comes from the line of Ritu Baral with Canaccord.

Some questions on the 4024 B and the 4025 trial design. You are using 50 mg of riluzole every day. What is the standard riluzole dose in ALS patients now? What percentage gets dizziness from that drug and how would you describe the degree?

So the standard dose of riluzole is 50 mg in the morning and 50 mg in the evening, or twice-daily or bid. And as we've discussed previously, there is a drug-drug interaction between 357 and riluzole, because 357 is a time-dependent and mechanism-based inhibitor of the enzyme that is primarily responsible for the metabolism of riluzole which is cytochrome P450 1A2. So that's why we have to adjust the dose downward. I don't really have at my fingertips and so I don't want to misstate this period incidence of dizziness on riluzole. It would be easy enough for us all to look up on the package insert. And that's what I would suggest you do, because I know that is a frequent side effect on riluzole, but I don't want to be in a position of estimating the stated incidence and getting it wrong when the data are so easily available to us all.

So the dose that you're using in 4024 and 4025, would that get you to about the same plasma levels of riluzole as you would with the bid dosing?

Actually no. The plasma levels with 50 mg once a day in the presence of 357 would be roughly double of what you would see with 50 mg bid in the absence of 357. So they are higher. That will allow us to begin to assess whether there are any tolerability problems with that combination or not.

Going to the 4025 study, do you expect most patients to be able to make it to the 500 mg dose or how do you expect patients to fall between the mid-357 and the final 500 dose?

Well, the data will eventually tell us, but we do expect the majority of patients based on the plasma levels that we predict will be able to tolerate it. It's a higher dose than what we study in terms of the daily dose in 4024 Parts A and B, by dividing it, so that it's given twice a day; so in other words, 250 mg in the morning and 250 mg in the evening, we will reduce the maximum plasma concentration that the patients experience. And so based on that modeling, we do expect that the majority of them will tolerate 250 bid. And we really have to anticipate that they may tolerate it well enough that we might wonder if we could have gone even higher. And we may choose to explore that in one way or another. Say for example, 250 mg in the morning and 375 in the evening. But that's pure speculation till we really see the data from 4025.

In 4025, you mentioned that you're going to be looking at pulmonary function measures. Can you go over the measures that you'll monitor, and also if these have been informed by pulmonary function measures from other disease trials like I believe pulmonary function was used in naglazyme and aldurazyme development as well?

The one that we're going to focus most upon is called the Maximum Voluntary Ventilation, which I believe we talked about before, in which patients are instructed to inhale and exhale as deeply and as rapidly as they can over a period, I believe, of 6 seconds. And then the volume that they manage to move in their lungs is measured. And we multiply it by 10, so that you get units that are liters per minute. And we've focused on this not because of experience in other diseases, but because of our own experience with this evaluation in the first Phase IIa Evidence of Effect study in ALS in which we saw some significant increases after the 500 mg dose of around 4 liters per minute. So we looked again in 4024 Part A, and we saw increases across the doses that were even larger. They weren't statistically significant because of the small study, but they were around 6 liters per minute, really quite an impressive increase. That will be the pulmonary function measured that we'll look at most closely and the reason why is because of our own prior experience with it in patients with ALS treated with 357.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Klein with Lazard Capital Markets.

First on omecamtiv mecarbil, can you tell us if there is any associated milestone payments with initiation of the oral trials?

I am sorry I cannot comment on what might trigger milestone payments under that deal. Those are matters of our confidentiality in our agreement with Amgen.

How about any guidance for some milestone payments in 2012 from that program?

We don't give guidance on milestones until they're actually achieved. And the revenue guidance that we gave today are those things that we are assured of, in other words that we've got a contract in place, that's FTE and out-of-pocket expenses. But we don't ever do guidance on things that would be speculative with respect to milestones and when certain events might happen until they actually happen.

On 357, would you expect that you would need to wait for a partnership before proceeding into Phase III, or do you think you might able to initiate registration trials on your own?

It's a good question. And we are going through the calculations on that right now. I don't think right now we could both start and conclude the registration study on our own. And in that regard, we do think that a partner who would be providing upfront cash and also co-funding those activities would be important.

And lastly, do you expect any residual restructuring costs coming into the first quarter?

No, we don't expect anything of any substance coming into the first quarter. We had a few people that were on a transition plan, but it's not material.

Your next question comes from the line of George Zavoico with MLV & Co.

I have a couple of quick questions. About the dizziness issue, have we sought it all about titrating 357 before reaching the desired concentration?

That is exactly what we'll be doing in CY 4025. As I described earlier, we'll start with the weak, 125 mg, in the morning and in the evening. And then after a week, 125 mg in the morning and 250 mg in the evening. And then in the third week, it would be 250 mg in the morning and 250 mg in the evening. So achieving the maximum plasma concentration, the patients will experience in the course of the study, which will almost certainly occur in the third week, more gradually we have data that we've modeled from our earlier studies to suggest that, that will produce better tolerability. And then also as I mentioned earlier, dividing the dose so that it's given twice a day will also reduce the maximum plasma concentration. In our earlier data that we've modeled, it suggests that the maximum plasma concentration is when it's associated with the dizziness, not so much the total exposure. Both the titration and the division of the dose should improve things. And I'll just remind you the other thing that we've already shown in CY 4024 Part A is even when this dizziness does occur, it's almost always mild and almost always goes away within the first week of dosing.

I guess at 125mg, you're pretty satisfied that the dizziness is not an issue then at all?

I mean we'll have the data. But I don't expect that we'll have too many problems with it. Some of you were on a call that we had in December where we had Prof. Jeff Rothstein from Johns Hopkins really be very clear that the focus on this is inordinate. That is a mild side effect. It doesn't stop patients from taking the drug almost ever and it goes away spontaneously. These are patients who are going to die. So it's highly unlikely in our consultant's view that it's really going to limit the use of the compound, but still we're looking for ways to reduce such incidents and hopefully eliminate it just by gradual dosing. Then you're right, I think we wouldn't really see much value in starting lower than 125 bid. We'll get the data, but I will be surprised if we have trouble with that starting dose.

And as I recall from that conference call, it wasn't even really dizziness. It was a more sort of euphoria, so that exactly how we described it. But dizziness isn't really that accurate, is it?

It's not. And it's something of an artifact of the steroids that's called MEDRAD that we need to use to code adverse events to standard terms. Most of the time it's reported as light headedness and the term dizziness is not so frequently actually used by the patients but when you put it through the coding system it comes out to dizziness, and you're right. We have speculated what some patients experience as what they call light headedness or woozy, others will describe as a buzz or put it in terms of feeling like it had a couple of stiff drinks, et cetera. And we can't really know because we can't get inside these patients head but we have our investigators suspect that it may well be the same symptom described differently by different patients. And again, Dr. Rothstein emphasized this on the call and I heard it from several of our investigators who say patients can perceive this, but I'm not so sure it's really even unpleasant. There is just something that they can proceed when they are taking the drug. And another thing I've heard frequently is, I doubtly even hear about if we weren't in the context of a clinical trial where we are asking the patients repeatedly, how do you feel?

With regard to 107, the next generation, follow under 357. What exactly we are looking for? Is it a different mechanism of actions of buying the troponin at different place, looking for a drug that's not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 that hits 357?

CK-107 was optimized in recognition of some of the potential issues with CK-357. And what we specifically we're going for is something that was distinguished chemically and by dint of that we found compounds in a different chemical series. CK-107 appears to be more potent, appears not to cross the blood-brain barrier to a similar extent and therefore to a much lesser extent. CK-107 has different other PK properties that weren't further characterization. But to be clear, there is still some things we don't know about CK-107. And we'll learn as we conduct these R&D enabling studies. But it might have a profile that could afford it a broader utility than CK-357. But even that is speculation right now. So it's good to have 2 compounds especially ones from different chemical series. We don't have any reason to believe that they have a different mechanism of action. In fact, we've validated the mechanism of action appears to be quite similar. And as far as were they bind, that appears also to be similar although we can't be precise to that point yet.

And one final short question, in myasthenia gravis trial, you mentioned that these patients get steroids and cholinesterase inhibitors. Do you have some on top of the steroids and in cholinesterase inhibitors?

So they do maintain their steroid dose. We asked if they refrain from cholinesterase inhibitors for a specified period of time prior to their visits for evaluation. They can take them during the week, but on the date that they come in to be evaluated. They have a very short half-life, as you probably know, and a very short duration. It's not like they have to forego treatment for a prolonged period of time.

The next question comes from the line of Dori Steinberg [ph] with Anson Group.

I had few questions, I guess in terms of the without including any milestone or royalty shift upfront payment. Would you say it's reasonable that you would expect to get maybe potentially 3 years of run rate from a partnering deal?

What I say it's reasonable, I'm going to leave that to you to project. What I can say is that they are comparable deals in which case that is achievable. When you look at the comparable deals that we discuss these with potential partners that is within the realm of what I would say is achievable. But you know there are lot of trade-offs and I'll tell you that what we're aiming for with a deal that we're seeking to do here and as we've discussed publicly several times is a deal that not only augments cash on our balance sheet, but also one that has effect to our net burn for this program. And for where we are continuing to maintain a very active role in leading development in ALS and other neuromuscular indications and in particular in North America. So with different potential partners there are different trade-offs as it relates to that. And the deals that we're looking at are cut across different geographies, cut across different indications. And in that regard, I don't think there is one size fits all to answer your question.

But the deal that Biogen did with Knopp, that was just based on a 3-month study. Their drug does not have the broad indications relative to other indications that 357 has. So with that in mind, it's reasonable to think that you should have a deal every bit of good as theirs if not better and that deal was $345 million.

So again, I'll leave that to you to project. I do believe that the mechanism of action for CK-357 and also CK-107 may have a broader application. It's not for me to comment on what's known or not known about the Knopp drug and the Biogen-Idec program. But to this point, we've been quite clear that we think that CK-357 and CK-107 are to be developed in ALS and also other neuromuscular indications, but also we believe the mechanism of action translates beyond neuromuscular disease as you're I think suggesting. The deal that Biogen-Idec and Knopp did also has a quite significant equity component. And in that way you'd have to make your own guesstimates as to cash versus equity in terms of what would be the ultimate way of thinking about a deal we might do.

But we do anticipate a partner paying for a registration trial that would satisfy both the FDA and the EMEA?

Yes. I'd certainly think a partner would be expected to participate in that level of commitment and more so and as you suggested there would be milestones and royalties to follow.

And without putting you in any kind of timing corner, which you'd be surprised, I understand you've been at the term-sheets stage for a several months. Would you be surprised if the deal isn't consummated by the end of this quarter?

So, again, I'm not going to speak to timing like that. But I will respond to the comment about terms-sheets. And I’ll say that we've advanced beyond that stage, as I said before.

And as far as this new research expansion with Amgen to do research on next generation compound research. Is this something that has come to like recently which is something kind of in the vision of both you and Amgen for a while. It's a wonderful extension to the collaboration. Just wonder if it's fairly new in terms of conception?

No, it's not new. Last year we had a smaller research collaboration in which each company was contributing to activities conducted under a joint research plan. And those activities that we were conducting were being reimbursed by Amgen sponsorship. What we're announcing today is an expansion of that of what amounts to a larger collaboration between our companies.

And is this also helping to – I’ve always thought that Cytokinetics has a wonderful ratio of scientists to overall staff. And this certainly would help making sure you keep your scientists busy, because obviously you've had to cut back on your own preclinical work?

So I think that a large part of the objective here which is as we've said previously, it's very important here at Cytokinetics to maintain the expertise that brought us these very innovative drug candidates that have advanced now into these later-stage of clinical studies. And we're constantly going back to the well in terms of understanding mechanistically and otherwise this pharmacology. So those peoples who contributed so importantly to the discovery and the characterization of our lead compounds are ones who continue to play a very important role as we advanced them. But as you know, and you and I discussed this in the past the challenge as to how our company like ours can mature. And as we increasingly devote to the later-stage clinical studies, how do you maintain that research infrastructure that's a difficult thing. And a lot of companies, frankly, just pick up their foot from what would have been in research and planted fully in development. And I think that's to their potential determinant. In our case, this is a keyway that we can continue to maintain in that expertise and that know-how at the company. And do so in a fiscally responsible way. And our goal with not only the Amgen, our collaboration but with the one we mentioned with Global Blood and others that were contemplating is to be able to keep that research organization sponsored not entirely but to a large extent, while we also focus increasingly to development. And where we to be able to do that I think we'll be one of the more uncommon companies that can keep everything here together.

I am impressed. What can I say, I like that approach and I just wish you guys the best in terms on the scientific front and on the business front. It's a very exciting particularly first half of this year. I look forward to your progress.

And your final question is a follow-up from the line of Ritu Baral with Canaccord.

I thought this time around I'd focus on omecamtiv. In the upcoming when the DSMB look for the ATOMIC trial, what are the key sort of safety measures that you and Amgen are going to be looking for as far as the go-no-go decisions. So what are the major safety concerns at this point?

On the Amgen, it will be the data monitoring committee. They want the access to all the data, not just safety data, but all the data. So they'll be looking at everything. And adverse events, laboratory, ECG everything that we're collecting they will have access to.

Will there be a utility component?

No.

And then the status of the next-generation Amgen candidate, can you talk to, where that is in either preclinical development or discovery?

Yes. Those are activities that relate to the discovery characterization and potential optimization of compounds that are still some ways away from even preclinical development. So I would not factor those into your development expectations anytime soon.

Will they have sort of the similar mechanisms or can they target other cardiac muscles sort of pathways?

We haven't commented publicly or at other event to say that we're looking at sarcomere activation broadly. And as you are suggesting, there may be ways to do that, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to comment more.

And final question, the R&D breakout that, Sharon mentioned, will that sort of breakout between smooth skeletal and cardiac be sort of steady going forward given the recent reorganization or there is still sort of adjustments to be made there? I

think it really is priority. Obviously we're going to probably build up more resources on the cardiac side of the business in 2012 based on the additional research plan that has been at the resources attached to the research plan that we have agreed with Amgen on. So there will be some shift, but the majority of the resources will be on skeletal.

And there are no further questions in queue. Mr. Robert Blum, do you have any closing remarks?

Thank you, operator. And thank you to all the participants on our teleconference today for your continued support and also for your interest in Cytoknetics. And with that, we will now conclude the call.

Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.