Metagenomi Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $87.9 million and $78.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025, our net losses were $50.5 million and $44.9 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $361.4 million. We have financed our operations primarily through issuing redeemable convertible preferred units and convertible promissory notes, entering into collaboration agreements, and through the IPO proceeds. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Current wording

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $87.9 million and $78.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2026 and 2025, our net losses were $71.7 million and $65.3 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $382.5 million. We have financed our operations primarily through issuing redeemable convertible preferred units and convertible promissory notes, entering into collaboration agreements, and through the IPO proceeds. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2026, our cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale marketable securities were $120.7 million. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale marketable securities, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of issuance of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. However, our operating plan may change as a result of factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek funding sooner than planned. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Current wording

As of September 30, 2026, our cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale marketable securities were $101.7 million. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale marketable securities, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of issuance of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. However, our operating plan may change as a result of factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek funding sooner than planned. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Previous wording

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our business and our financial condition. In recent years, many such changes have been made, including the OBBBA, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025, and made significant changes to U.S. federal tax law. For example, under Section 174 of the IRC, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed outside the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. The OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed in the U.S. may, at the taxpayer’s election, be immediately deducted or capitalized and amortized. In addition, the OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 and before January 1, 2025, certain eligible taxpayers generally may elect to retroactively deduct expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years generally may elect to accelerate and deduct the remaining unamortized amounts of such research and development expenses (i) in the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024, or (ii) ratably over the two-taxable year period beginning with the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, under Section 174 of the Code, currently, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development in the U.S. are capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. More recently, however, there have been proposals to retroactively reinstate deductibility under Section 174 of the Code. We cannot predict whether, when, in what form or with what effective dates, tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or decided or whether they could increase our tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize increases in our tax liability.

Current wording

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our business and our financial condition. In recent years, many such changes have been made, including the OBBBA, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025, and made significant changes to U.S. federal tax law. For example, under Section 174 of the IRC, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed outside the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. The OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed in the U.S. may, at the taxpayer’s election, be immediately deducted or capitalized and amortized. In addition, the OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 and before January 1, 2025, certain eligible taxpayers generally may elect to retroactively deduct expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years to accelerate and deduct the remaining unamortized amounts of such research and development expenses (i) in the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024, or (ii) ratably over the two-taxable year period beginning with the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024. We cannot predict whether, when, in what form or with what effective dates, tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or decided or whether they could increase our tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize increases in our tax liability.

Previous wording

We are very early in our development efforts and have focused our research and development efforts to date on research efforts including preclinical studies. Currently, all of our programs are still in the research, lead optimization, or IND-enabling stage of development. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and eventual commercialization of our future product candidates, which may never occur. We have not yet generated revenue from product sales, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Current wording

We are very early in our development efforts and have focused our research and development efforts to date on research efforts including preclinical studies. Currently, all of our programs are still in the research and lead optimization stage of development. In the fourth quarter of 2026, the FDA cleared our IND for MGX-001. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and eventual commercialization of our future product candidates, which may never occur. We have not yet generated revenue from product sales, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Previous wording

Commencing clinical trials in the United States is subject to acceptance by the FDA of an IND application and finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA. In the event that the FDA requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other FDA requests prior to commencing clinical trials, the start of our first clinical trials may be delayed or we may be unsuccessful obtaining clearance to proceed into clinical development. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from the FDA, the FDA could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence any clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, delay the enrollment of our clinical trials, abandon our clinical development plans or meet stricter approval conditions than we currently expect. For example, emerging data relating to our hemophilia A development candidate, MGX-001, from our NHP studies using our bioengineered B-domain deleted FVIII construct has, to date, demonstrated both high activity as well as high variability related to FVIII. While we have not received all of the data from the studies, we have commenced additional studies and may consider alternatives to this bioengineered FVIII construct. While we are planning to achieve our IND submission timelines, the need to conduct additional studies and/or consider alternatives to bioengineered FVIII, the risks described above relating to the FDA submission process, coupled with the uncertain regulatory environment in the United States, could delay our current expected IND submission timelines.

Current wording

Commencing clinical trials in the United States is subject to acceptance by the FDA of an IND application and finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA. In the event that the FDA requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other FDA requests prior to commencing clinical trials, the start of our first clinical trials may be delayed or we may be unsuccessful obtaining clearance to proceed into clinical development. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from the FDA, the FDA could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence any clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, delay the enrollment of our clinical trials, abandon our clinical development plans or meet stricter approval conditions than we currently expect. For example, emerging data relating to our hemophilia A development candidate, MGX-001, from our NHP studies using our bioengineered B-domain deleted FVIII construct has, to date, demonstrated both high activity as well as high variability related to FVIII. While we have not received all of the data from the studies, we have commenced additional studies and may consider alternatives to this bioengineered FVIII construct.

Previous wording

There are equivalent processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications in other countries, including countries in the European Union. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. We may conduct one or more of our clinical trials with one or more trial sites that are located outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA, and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and could delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates.

Current wording

There are equivalent processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications in other countries, including countries in the European Union. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. We may conduct one or more of our clinical trials with one or more trial sites that are located outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA, and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with good clinical practice. The FDA must be able to validate the data from the trial through an onsite inspection, if necessary. If access to clinical trial sites or documentation is delayed or restricted, including for geopolitical reasons, the FDA may not accept such data in support of an IND or marketing application which would adversely affect our development and approval plans. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, we would likely need to conduct additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and could delay or halt our development of the applicable product candidates. Recent policy proposals in the U.S., if enacted in the future, may make acceptance by the FDA or inclusion in a marketing application of foreign data more difficult or costly. In addition, the FDA recently signaled increased scrutiny of foreign clinical trial data submitted in support of marketing applications, indicating plans for increased foreign site inspections and increased transparency of inspection results.

Previous wording

Because genome editing is relatively novel, the regulatory requirements that will govern any novel genome editing product candidates we develop may continue to evolve. Only one genome editing therapy, CASGEVY, has received marketing authorization from the FDA and EC to date and, within the broader genetic therapy field, a limited number of gene therapy products have received marketing authorization from the FDA and the EC. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, in January 2024, the FDA published a final guidance document providing recommendations for human genome editing gene therapy products, and in September 2025, the FDA issued several new draft guidance documents on cell and gene therapy products. Further, in 2026, the FDA has issued several new draft guidance documents on cell and therapy products as well as one final guidance document concerning chemistry, manufacturing, and controls flexibilities for developing human cellular and gene therapy products for a biologics license application (“BLA”). Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Therapeutic Products (“OTP”) within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials may also be subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees certain basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, the review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies, such as an IBC or institutional review board (“IRB”), can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial and approved its initiation. For example, more recently, some genome editing companies have seen significant delays in receiving FDA authorization to allow the initiation of their clinical trials, and has suspended ongoing trials, due to the FDA’s placement of clinical holds on their INDs.

Current wording

Because genome editing is relatively novel, the regulatory requirements that will govern any novel genome editing product candidates we develop may continue to evolve. Only one genome editing therapy, CASGEVY, has received marketing authorization from the FDA and EC to date and, within the broader genetic therapy field, a limited number of gene therapy products have received marketing authorization from the FDA and the EC. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, in January 2024, the FDA published a final guidance document providing recommendations for human genome editing gene therapy products, and in September 2025, the FDA issued several new draft guidance documents on cell and gene therapy products. Further, in 2026, the FDA has issued several new draft guidance documents on cell and gene therapy products as well as one final guidance document concerning chemistry, manufacturing, and controls flexibilities for developing human cellular and gene therapy products for a biologics license application (“BLA”). Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Therapeutic Products (“OTP”) within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials may also be subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees certain basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, the review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies, such as an IBC or institutional review board (“IRB”), can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial and approved its initiation. For example, more recently, some genome editing companies have seen significant delays in receiving FDA authorization to allow the initiation of their clinical trials, and have suspended ongoing trials, due to the FDA’s placement of clinical holds on their INDs.

Previous wording

Any product candidates we may develop will likely require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a biologic such as the product candidates we intend to develop generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product candidate may not be sufficient to ensure that the product candidate will perform in the intended manner. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims, insufficient inventory or potentially delay progression of our potential IND filings. If we successfully develop product candidates, we may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet the FDA, the EMA or other comparable applicable foreign standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs. For example, the current approach of manufacturing AAV vectors may fall short of supplying required number of doses needed for advanced stages of preclinical studies or clinical trials, and the FDA may ask us to demonstrate that we have the appropriate manufacturing processes in place to support the higher-dose group in our preclinical studies or clinical trials. In addition, any product candidates we may develop will require complicated delivery methods, each of which will introduce additional complexities in the manufacturing process.

Current wording

Any product candidates we may develop will likely require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a biologic such as the product candidates we intend to develop generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product candidate may not be sufficient to ensure that the product candidate will perform in the intended manner. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims, insufficient inventory or potentially delay progression of our IND filings. If we successfully develop product candidates, we may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet the FDA, the EMA or other comparable applicable foreign standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs. For example, the current approach of manufacturing AAV vectors may fall short of supplying required number of doses needed for advanced stages of preclinical studies or clinical trials, and the FDA may ask us to demonstrate that we have the appropriate manufacturing processes in place to support the higher-dose group in our preclinical studies or clinical trials. In addition, any product candidates we may develop will require complicated delivery methods, each of which will introduce additional complexities in the manufacturing process.

Previous wording

Amongst publicly traded peers, there are several companies utilizing CRISPR/Cas technology, including Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG and Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. Several additional companies such as Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., Precision BioSciences, Inc., and Cellectis Inc. utilize alternative nuclease-based genome editing technologies, including zinc finger nucleases (“ZFNs”), engineered meganucleases and transcription-activator like effector nucleases (“TALENs”). Beam Therapeutics and Verve Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Eli Lilly and Company) utilize base editing technology. Prime Medicine utilizes prime editing technology.

Current wording

Amongst publicly traded peers, there are several companies utilizing CRISPR/Cas technology, including Scribe Therapeutics, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., CRISPR Therapeutics AG and Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. Several additional companies such as Precision BioSciences, Inc., and Cellectis S.A. utilize alternative nuclease-based genome editing technologies, including engineered meganucleases and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (“TALENs”). Beam Therapeutics Inc. and Verve Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Eli Lilly and Company) utilize base editing technology. Prime Medicine, Inc. utilizes prime editing technology.

Previous wording

Several private companies such as Arbor Biotechnologies, Inc., Scribe Therapeutics Inc., and Mammoth Biosciences, Inc. are actively searching for novel genome editing components and have reported the discovery of new DNA-cutting enzymes. Other companies are active in LNP delivery technologies and advancing those into therapeutics using genetic therapies, including Recode Therapeutics, Inc., Verve Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Eli Lilly and Company), Generation Bio Co. and Beam Therapeutics, among others.

Current wording

Amongst private companies, Tessera Therapeutics, Inc. is developing recombinase DNA and RNA gene writers. Arbor Biotechnologies, Inc. and Mammoth Biosciences, Inc. are actively searching for novel genome editing components and have reported the discovery of new DNA-cutting enzymes. Other companies such as Epicrispr Biotechnologies, Inc., nChroma Bio Inc. and Tune Therapeutics Inc. are focused on epigenetic editing. We also face competition from companies active in LNP delivery technologies and advancing those into therapeutics using genetic therapies, including ReCode Therapeutics, Inc., Verve Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Eli Lilly and Company) and Beam Therapeutics Inc., among others. In addition, we face competition from public and private companies utilizing gene therapy, oligonucleotide and cell therapy approaches.

Previous wording

We incorporate artificial intelligence (“AI”) solutions into our platform, and these applications may become important in our operations over time. There are significant risks involved in utilizing AI and no assurance can be provided that the usage of such AI will enhance our business or assist our business in being more efficient or profitable. If we enable or offer solutions that draw controversy due to perceived or actual negative societal impact, we may experience brand or reputational harm, competitive harm or legal liability. Known risks of AI currently include inaccuracy, bias, toxicity, intellectual property infringement or misappropriation, data privacy risks and cybersecurity and data provenance challenged, among other risks. In addition, AI may have errors or inadequacies that are not easily detectable. AI may also be subject to data herding and interconnectedness (i.e., multiple market participants utilizing the same data), which may adversely impact our business. If the data used to train AI or the content, analyses, or recommendations that AI applications assist in producing are or are alleged to be deficient, inaccurate, incomplete, overbroad or biased, our business, financial condition, and results of operations may be adversely affected. The legal landscape and subsequent legal protection for the use of AI remains uncertain, and development of the law in this area could impact our ability to enforce our proprietary rights or protect against infringing uses. If we do not have sufficient rights to use the data on which AI relies or to the outputs produced by AI applications, we may incur liability through the violation of certain laws, third-party privacy or other rights or contracts to which we are a party.

Current wording

We incorporate artificial intelligence (“AI”) solutions into our platform, and these applications may become important in our operations over time. There are significant risks involved in utilizing AI and no assurance can be provided that the usage of such AI will enhance our business or assist our business in being more efficient or profitable. If we enable or offer solutions that draw controversy due to perceived or actual negative societal impact, we may experience brand or reputational harm, competitive harm or legal liability. Known risks of AI currently include inaccuracy, bias, toxicity, intellectual property infringement or misappropriation, data privacy risks and cybersecurity and data provenance challenges, among other risks. In addition, AI may have errors or inadequacies that are not easily detectable. AI may also be subject to data herding and interconnectedness (i.e., multiple market participants utilizing the same data), which may adversely impact our business. If the data used to train AI or the content, analyses, or recommendations that AI applications assist in producing are or are alleged to be deficient, inaccurate, incomplete, overbroad or biased, our business, financial condition, and results of operations may be adversely affected. The legal landscape and subsequent legal protection for the use of AI remains uncertain, and development of the law in this area could impact our ability to enforce our proprietary rights or protect against infringing uses. If we do not have sufficient rights to use the data on which AI relies or to the outputs produced by AI applications, we may incur liability through the violation of certain laws, third-party privacy or other rights or contracts to which we are a party.

Previous wording

Additionally, we expect to see increasing government and supranational regulation related to artificial intelligence use and ethics, which may also significantly increase the burden and cost of research, development and compliance in this area. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) — the world’s first comprehensive AI law — which entered into force on August 1, 2024 and most provisions of which will become effective on August 2, 2026. This legislation imposes significant obligations on providers and deployers of high risk artificial intelligence systems, and encourages providers and deployers of artificial intelligence systems to account for EU ethical principles in their development and use of these systems. If we develop or use AI systems that are governed by the AI Act, it may necessitate ensuring higher standards of data quality, transparency, and human oversight, as well as adhering to specific and potentially burdensome and costly ethical, accountability, and administrative requirements. Likewise, in the U.S., a number of states have proposed and passed laws regulating various uses of AI, and federal regulators have issued guidance affecting the use of AI in regulated sectors. For example, the FDA has issued draft guidance on the use of AI to produce information or data intended to support regulatory decision-making regarding the safety, effectiveness, or quality of drugs and biological products.

Current wording

Additionally, we expect to see increasing government and supranational regulation related to artificial intelligence use and ethics, which may also significantly increase the burden and cost of research, development and compliance in this area. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) — the world’s first comprehensive AI law — which entered into force on August 1, 2024, with most provisions having become effective on August 2, 2026, subject to exceptions. The EU’s Digital Omnibus on AI amended the AI Act in July 2026. Under the revised timetable, certain requirements for high-risk AI systems in specified use categories apply from December 2, 2027, and those for high-risk AI systems linked to specified regulated products from August 2, 2028. This legislation imposes significant obligations on providers and deployers of high risk artificial intelligence systems, and encourages providers and deployers of artificial intelligence systems to account for EU ethical principles in their development and use of these systems. The scope of applicable requirements depends on legal and risk determinations and regulatory and judicial interpretations. Actual or perceived non-compliance could expose us to significant fines, enforcement actions or litigation. If we develop or use AI systems that are governed by the AI Act, it may necessitate ensuring higher standards of data quality, transparency, and human oversight, as well as adhering to specific and potentially burdensome and costly ethical, accountability, and administrative requirements. Likewise, in the U.S., a number of states have proposed and passed laws regulating various uses of AI, and federal regulators have issued guidance affecting the use of AI in regulated sectors. For example, the FDA has issued draft guidance on the use of AI to produce information or data intended to support regulatory decision-making regarding the safety, effectiveness, or quality of drugs and biological products.

Previous wording

However, there can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain such designations for any potential product candidates. In addition, while such designations could expedite the development or approval process, they generally do not change the standards for approval. Even if we obtain such designations for one or more of our potential product candidates, there can be no assurance that we will realize their intended benefits. For example, we may seek fast track designation for some of our potential product candidates. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life threatening condition and the therapy nonclinical or clinical data demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for fast track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a fast track designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Additionally, we may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for some of our potential product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our potential product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our potential product candida…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

However, there can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain such designations for any potential product candidates. In addition, while such designations could expedite the development or approval process, they generally do not change the standards for approval. Even if we obtain such designations for one or more of our potential product candidates, there can be no assurance that we will realize their intended benefits. For example, we may seek fast track designation for some of our potential product candidates. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life threatening condition and the therapy nonclinical or clinical data demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for fast track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a fast track designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Additionally, we may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for some of our potential product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our potential product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our potential product candida…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

In the future, we may also seek approval of product candidates under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”) that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as IMM. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verity and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval confirmatory study or studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval.

Current wording

In the future, we may also seek approval of product candidates under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”) that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as IMM. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval confirmatory study or studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval.

Previous wording

Within the United States, the federal government and individual states have aggressively pursued healthcare reform, as evidenced by the passing of the Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), and the ongoing efforts to modify or repeal that legislation. The ACA significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and contains a number of provisions that affect coverage and reimbursement of drug products and/or that could potentially reduce the demand for pharmaceutical products such as increasing drug rebates under state Medicaid programs for brand name prescription drugs and extending those rebates to Medicaid managed care and assessing a fee on manufacturers and importers of brand name prescription drugs reimbursed under certain government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Other aspects of healthcare reform, such as expanded government enforcement authority and heightened standards that could increase compliance-related costs, could also affect our business. Modifications have been implemented under the former Trump administration and additional modifications or repeal may occur.

Current wording

Within the United States, the federal government and individual states have aggressively pursued healthcare reform, as evidenced by the passing of the Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), and the ongoing efforts to modify or repeal that legislation. The ACA significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and contains a number of provisions that affect coverage and reimbursement of drug products and/or that could potentially reduce the demand for pharmaceutical products such as increasing drug rebates under state Medicaid programs for brand name prescription drugs and extending those rebates to Medicaid managed care and assessing a fee on manufacturers and importers of brand name prescription drugs reimbursed under certain government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Other aspects of healthcare reform, such as expanded government enforcement authority and heightened standards that could increase compliance-related costs, could also affect our business. Modifications have been implemented under the first and current Trump administrations, including for example changes to ACA Marketplace eligibility verification and enrollment, and additional modifications or repeal may occur.

Previous wording

In order to proceed into clinical development of any product candidates we identify, we will need to submit INDs or clinical trial applications to regulatory authorities and obtain regulatory clearance to commence clinical development. Because the product candidates we identify are based on novel gene-editing technology, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining clearance from regulatory authorities to proceed into clinical development. In order to commence clinical development, we will need to identify success criteria and endpoints such that the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities will be able to determine the clinical efficacy and safety profile of any product candidates we may develop. As we are initially seeking to identify and develop product candidates to treat diseases in which there is little clinical experience using new technologies, and while we may have opportunities to discuss our clinical development plans with regulatory authorities prior to commencing clinical development, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may not consider the clinical trial endpoints that we propose to provide clinically meaningful results (reflecting a tangible benefit to patients). In addition, the resulting clinical data and results may be difficult to analyze. Even if the FDA does find our success criteria to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, we may not achieve the pre-specified endpoints to a degree of statistical significance. This may be a particularly significant risk for many of the genetically defined diseases for which we plan to develop product candidates because many of these diseases such as Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 1 have small patient populations, and designing and executing a rigorous clinical trial with appropriate statistical power is more difficult than with diseases that have larger patient populations.

Current wording

In order to proceed into clinical development of any product candidates we identify, we will need to submit INDs or clinical trial applications to regulatory authorities and obtain regulatory clearance to commence clinical development. In the fourth quarter of 2026, the FDA cleared our IND for MGX-001. Because the product candidates we identify are based on novel gene-editing technology, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining clearance from regulatory authorities to proceed into clinical development. In order to commence clinical development, we will need to identify success criteria and endpoints such that the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities will be able to determine the clinical efficacy and safety profile of any product candidates we may develop. As we are initially seeking to identify and develop product candidates to treat diseases in which there is little clinical experience using new technologies, and while we may have opportunities to discuss our clinical development plans with regulatory authorities prior to commencing clinical development, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may not consider the clinical trial endpoints that we propose to provide clinically meaningful results (reflecting a tangible benefit to patients). In addition, the resulting clinical data and results may be difficult to analyze. Even if the FDA does find our success criteria to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, we may not achieve the pre-specified endpoints to a degree of statistical significance. This may be a particularly significant risk for many of the genetically defined diseases for which we plan to develop product candidates because many of these have small patient populations, and designing and executing a rigorous clinical trial with appropriate statistical power is more difficult than with diseases that have larger patient populations.

Previous wording

Furthermore, even if we do achieve the pre-specified criteria, we may produce results that are unpredictable or inconsistent with the results of the non-primary endpoints or other relevant data. The FDA also weighs the benefits of a product against its risks, and the FDA may view the efficacy results in the context of safety as not being supportive of regulatory approval. Other regulatory authorities in the European Union and other countries may make similar comments with respect to these endpoints and data. Any product candidates we may develop will be based on a novel technology that makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. No genome editing therapeutic product has been approved in the United States or in Europe. Within the broader genome product field, only a limited number of gene therapy products, such as uniQure N.V.’s Glybera and Abecma from Bristol Myers Squibb and bluebird bio, have received marketing authorization or regulatory approval from the European Commission or the FDA. Some of these products have taken years to register and have had to deal with significant issues in their post-marketing experience.

Current wording

Furthermore, even if we do achieve the pre-specified criteria, we may produce results that are unpredictable or inconsistent with the results of the non-primary endpoints or other relevant data. The FDA also weighs the benefits of a product against its risks, and the FDA may view the efficacy results in the context of safety as not being supportive of regulatory approval. Other regulatory authorities in the European Union and other countries may make similar comments with respect to these endpoints and data. Any product candidates we may develop will be based on a novel technology that makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. Only one genome editing therapy, CASGEVY, has received marketing authorization from the FDA and European Commission to date. Within the broader genome product field, only a limited number of gene therapy products, such as uniQure N.V.’s Glybera and Abecma from Bristol Myers Squibb and bluebird bio, have received marketing authorization or regulatory approval from the European Commission or the FDA. Some of these products have taken years to register and have had to deal with significant issues in their post-marketing experience.

Previous wording

In addition, our operations may be subject to European data privacy laws, regulations and guidelines. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal information regarding individuals in the EEA and UK, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR, with respect to the EEA and the UK General Data Protection Regulation and UK Data Protection Act 2018 with respect to the UK, or UK GDPR, and collectively with the EU GDPR referred to as the “GDPR” in this document unless specified otherwise. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal information, including requirements relating to processing of special categories of personal information (such as health data), relying on a legal basis or condition for processing personal information, where required obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal information relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, conducting privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal information, implementing limitations on the retention of personal information, providing mandatory notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal information to countries outside the EEA and UK to non-adequate territories, including the United States in certain circumstances unless derogation exists or a valid GDPR transfer mechanism (for example, the European Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses, or SCCs, and the UK International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum, or UK IDTA) have been put in place. Where relying on the SCCs /UK IDTA for data transfers, we may also be required to carry out transfer impact assessments to assess whether the recipient is subject to local laws which allow public authority access to personal information. Failure to comply with the GDPR, and any supplemental EEA Member State or UK national data protection laws which may apply by virtue of the location of the individuals whose personal information we collect, may result in substantial penalties, including potential fines of up to €20 million (£17.5 million for the UK GDPR) or 4% of annual global revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. The GDPR increases our responsibility and liability in relation to personal information that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and requires us to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individu…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

In addition, our operations may be subject to European data privacy laws, regulations and guidelines. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal information regarding individuals in the EEA and UK, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR, with respect to the EEA and the UK General Data Protection Regulation and UK Data Protection Act 2018 with respect to the UK, or UK GDPR, and collectively with the EU GDPR referred to as the “GDPR” in this document unless specified otherwise. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal information, including requirements relating to processing of special categories of personal information (such as health data), relying on a legal basis or condition for processing personal information, where required obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal information relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, conducting privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal information, implementing limitations on the retention of personal information, providing mandatory notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal information to countries outside the EEA and UK to non-adequate territories, including the United States in certain circumstances unless derogation exists or a valid GDPR transfer mechanism (for example, the European Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses, or SCCs, and the UK International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum, or UK IDTA) have been put in place. Where relying on the SCCs /UK IDTA for data transfers, we may also be required to carry out transfer impact assessments to assess whether the recipient is subject to local laws which allow public authority access to personal information and adopt supplementary measures where required. Any inability to transfer personal information from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with data protection laws may impede our ability to conduct clinical trials and may adversely affect our business and financial position. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU GDPR, the European Commission has issued an adequacy decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal information subject to the EU GDPR to the UK may take place without additional transfer safeguards. The UK government has confirmed that personal information transfers from the UK to the EEA may take place without additional transfer safeguards under the UK’s adequacy arrangements. Failure to comply with the GDPR, and any supplemental EEA Member State or UK national data protection laws which may apply by …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Although the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR currently impose substantially similar obligations, it is possible that over time the UK GDPR could become less aligned with the EU GDPR. The UK Government has introduced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill to reform the UK data protection legal framework which failed in the UK legislative process. A new Data (Use and Access) Bill (“UK Bill”) has been introduced into parliament. If passed, the final version of the UK Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the UK and EEA data protection regime and threaten the UK Adequacy Decision from the European Commission, or EC. Further, this may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk In addition, EEA Member States have adopted national laws which may partially deviate from the EU GDPR, and the competent authorities in the EEA Member States may interpret EU GDPR obligations slightly differently from country to country, such that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EEA. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty. This possible divergence in the future creates additional regulatory challenges and uncertainties for us. The lack of clarity on future UK laws and regulations and their interaction with EU laws and regulations could add legal risk, uncertainty, complexity and compliance cost to the handling of European personal information and our privacy and data security compliance.

Current wording

Although the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR currently impose substantially similar obligations, it is possible that over time the UK GDPR could become less aligned with the EU GDPR. For example, the UK Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (“UK Act”) has amended the UK’s data protection regime, further differentiating it from the EEA data protection regime. In December 2025, the European Commission adopted a decision determining that the UK continues to provide a level of data protection that is “essentially equivalent” to the EU standards and extended the validity of the UK adequacy decision for six years, through December 2031. While this renewal reduces immediate adequacy concerns, uncertainty remains regarding how UK data protection laws will evolve in the medium to longer term. The lack of clarity on future UK laws and regulations and their interaction with EU laws and regulations may affect our efforts to maintain a harmonized approach to processing European personal information and expose us to two parallel regimes where the UK GDPR and EU GDPR both apply with differing interpretation and enforcement approaches. This could increase our legal risk, uncertainty, complexity and compliance cost associated with the handling of European personal information. and may require us to adapt our privacy and data security compliance programs to account for legal and regulatory divergence between the UK and the EEA. In addition, EEA Member States have adopted and are able to adopt national laws which may partially deviate from the EU GDPR, and the competent authorities in the EEA Member States may interpret EU GDPR obligations slightly differently from country to country, such that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EEA. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty. This possible divergence in the future creates additional regulatory challenges and uncertainties for us. The European Commission has also proposed reforms under the “Digital Omnibus” package which, if adopted, may further modify EU GDPR-related requirements, including the scope of personal information and the treatment of coded or de-identified data, potentially requiring further adjustments to our European privacy compliance framework.

Previous wording

On November 11, 2025, we announced a new Chief Executive Officer and a strategic restructuring that included a reduction in our organizational headcount of 25%. We recognized substantially all of the charges related to the workforce reduction in the quarter ended December 31, 2025.

Current wording

In November 2025, we announced a new Chief Executive Officer and a strategic restructuring that included a reduction in our organizational headcount of 25%. We recognized substantially all of the charges related to the workforce reduction in the quarter ended December 31, 2025.

Previous wording

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. In addition, our company-building efforts and establishment of a company culture will also be important to developing an innovative company in a high-evolving area. We may not be able to succeed in these efforts to build Metagenomi Therapeutics as an attractive and exciting place to build a career or to attract and retain these types of personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors, including our scientific co-founders, may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. We may also encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to manage our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The inability to recruit, or loss of services of, certain executives, key employees, consultants or advisors, may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. In addition, our company-building efforts and establishment of a company culture will also be important to developing an innovative company in a highly-evolving area. We may not be able to succeed in these efforts to build Metagenomi Therapeutics as an attractive and exciting place to build a career or to attract and retain these types of personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors, including our scientific co-founders, may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. We may also encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to manage our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The inability to recruit, or loss of services of, certain executives, key employees, consultants or advisors, may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

We may fail to manage our growth effectively. As of June 30, 2026, we had 113 full-time employees, of which 38 have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Within our workforce, 92 employees are engaged in research, development and technical operations, and 21 are engaged in business development, finance, legal, and general management and administration. In connection with the growth and advancement of our pipeline and continuing to operate as a public company, we expect to increase the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of research and clinical development, regulatory affairs and, if any of our future product candidates receive regulatory approval, sales and marketing. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expected expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Moreover, the expected physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Current wording

We may fail to manage our growth effectively. As of September 30, 2026, we had 107 full-time employees, of which 38 have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Within our workforce, 85 employees are engaged in research, development and technical operations, and 22 are engaged in business development, finance, legal, and general management and administration. In connection with the growth and advancement of our pipeline and continuing to operate as a public company, we expect to increase the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of research and clinical development, regulatory affairs and, if any of our future product candidates receive regulatory approval, sales and marketing. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expected expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Moreover, the expected physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Previous wording

There is substantial uncertainty as to how and the extent the Trump administration will seek to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates and any products for which we obtain approval. This uncertainty could present new challenges and/or opportunities as we navigate development and approval of our product candidates. Additionally, the Trump administration could issue or promulgate executive orders, regulations, policies or guidance that adversely affect us or create a more challenging or costly environment to pursue the development of new therapeutic candidates.

Current wording

There is substantial uncertainty as to how and the extent the Trump administration will seek to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates and any products for which we obtain approval. This uncertainty could present new challenges and/or opportunities as we navigate development and approval of our product candidates. Additionally, the Trump administration could issue or promulgate executive orders, regulations, policies or guidance that adversely affect us or create a more challenging or costly environment to pursue the development of new therapeutic candidates. Also, state governments may seek to address or react to changes at the federal level with changes to their regulatory frameworks in a manner that could impact our operations.

Previous wording

Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. There is no assurance that all the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patent portfolio has been found. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patent portfolio, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. If such prior art exists, it may be used to invalidate a patent, or may prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. For example, such patent filings may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO, or to other patent offices around the world. Alternately or additionally, we may become involved in post-grant review procedures, oppositions, derivation proceedings, ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, supplemental examinations, or interference proceedings or challenges before the USPTO or in district court in the United States, or similar proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions, including both national and regional, challenging patents or patent applications in which we have rights, including patents on which we rely to protect our business. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of the patent or claims in the patent portfolio being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, or in denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more claims of the patent portfolio, any of which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products.

Current wording

Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. There is no assurance that all the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patent portfolio has been found. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patent portfolio, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. If such prior art exists, it may be used to invalidate a patent, or may prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. For example, such patent filings may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO, or to other patent offices around the world. Alternately or additionally, we may become involved in post-grant review procedures, oppositions, derivation proceedings, ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, supplemental examinations, or interference proceedings or challenges before the USPTO or in district court in the United States, or similar proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions, including both national and regional, challenging patents or patent applications in which we have rights, including patents on which we rely to protect our business. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of the patent or claims in the patent portfolio being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, or in denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more claims of the patent portfolio, any of which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Since early 2025, the USPTO has substantially revised its policies governing discretionary denial of institution of inter partes review and post-grant review petitions, including rescinding prior guidance that limited such denials and by adopting new discretionary factors, such as the “settled expectations” doctrine associated with long standing patents. These and other related policy changes have been associated with a marked increase in the rate at which the USPTO denies institution of inter partes review and post-grant review petitions. While these developments may make it more difficult for third parties to invalidate our patents through such proceedings, they may likewise limit our own ability to rely on such mechanisms to challenge third-party patents that block our development or commercialization activities, and the discretionary denial framework remains subject to further cha…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Competitors may seek to commercialize competitive products to our genome editing systems. In order to protect our competitive position, we may become involved in lawsuits asserting infringement of our patents, or misappropriation or other violations of other of our intellectual property rights. Litigation is expensive and time consuming and would likely divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Additionally, we may be subject to claims of patent infringement during those proceedings, and delays caused by the federal agencies may increase the time period that we are subject to such claims. For example, administrative changes, including reduced staff and budgets experienced by the Patent and Trial Appeal Board, could further delay our ability to timely challenge any such patents. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

Current wording

Competitors may seek to commercialize competitive products to our genome editing systems. In order to protect our competitive position, we may become involved in lawsuits asserting infringement of our patents, or misappropriation or other violations of other of our intellectual property rights. Litigation is expensive and time consuming and would likely divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Additionally, we may be subject to claims of patent infringement during those proceedings, and delays caused by the federal agencies may increase the time period that we are subject to such claims. For example, administrative changes, including reduced staff and budgets experienced by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, could further delay our ability to timely challenge any such patents. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

Previous wording

geopolitical tensions or the outbreak of hostilities or war, including from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, the current conflicts in Iran and the Middle East (including any escalation or expansion), the current conflict in Venezuela and increasing tensions between China and Taiwan; and

Current wording

geopolitical tensions or the outbreak of hostilities or war, including from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, the current conflicts in Iran and the Middle East (including any escalation or expansion) and increasing tensions between China and Taiwan; and

Previous wording

On September 26, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against our company and certain of our officers and certain of our current and former directors, captioned Vreeland v. Metagenomi Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-06765 (the “Securities Action”). The Securities Action alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants and control person violations of Section 15 against the individuals. The Securities Action alleges that the defendants made misleading statements and omitted to disclose material information concerning our collaboration with Moderna in our registration statement and final prospectus materials filed in January 2024 and February 2024. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages as well as costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. On February 10, 2025, the court appointed Mingxi Bi as lead plaintiff, and the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2025. On May 16, 2025, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims of the Securities Action. On March 24, 2026, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 27, 2026, Defendants answered the operative complaint. The case is currently in discovery. We intend to defend vigorously against this litigation.

Current wording

On September 26, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against our company and certain of our officers and certain of our current and former directors, captioned Vreeland v. Metagenomi Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-06765 (the “Securities Action”). The Securities Action alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants and control person violations of Section 15 against the individuals. The Securities Action alleges that the defendants made misleading statements and omitted to disclose material information concerning our collaboration with Moderna in our registration statement and final prospectus materials filed in January 2024 and February 2024. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages as well as costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. On February 10, 2025, the court appointed Mingxi Bi as lead plaintiff, and the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2025. On May 16, 2025, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims of the Securities Action. On March 24, 2026, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 27, 2026, the defendants answered the operative complaint. On October 21, 2026, counsel for lead plaintiff and for defendants participated in a mediation of this matter, and the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the class claims, subject to court approval, for $7.5 million, a significant portion of which will be funded by insurance proceeds.

Previous wording

At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome, therefore we cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss. We may also become subject to additional securities class action lawsuits in the future. The cost of defending against these types of claims against us or the ultimate resolution of such claims, whether by settlement or adverse court decision, may harm our business. Further, potential claimants may be encouraged to bring lawsuits based on a settlement from us or adverse court decisions against us. We cannot currently assess the likely outcome of such suits, but the commencement and/or resolution of such suits (particularly if the outcome were negative), could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial position, results of operations and cash flows. They could also cause a decline in the market price of our common stock.

Current wording

The settlement remains subject to the negotiation of definitive documentation and court approval, and there can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or approved on the terms described, or at all. If the settlement is not finalized or approved, we may incur additional costs, and the outcome of the litigation could be more adverse to us than the agreed settlement. We may also become subject to additional securities class action lawsuits in the future. The cost of defending against these types of claims against us or the ultimate resolution of such claims, whether by settlement or adverse court decision, may harm our business. Further, potential claimants may be encouraged to bring lawsuits based on a settlement from us or adverse court decisions against us. We cannot currently assess the likely outcome of such suits, but the commencement and/or resolution of such suits (particularly if the outcome were negative), could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial position, results of operations and cash flows. They could also cause a decline in the market price of our common stock.

Previous wording

Although our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, an active or liquid market in our common stock may not be sustained. If a market for our common is not sustained, it may be difficult for you to sell your shares of common stock at an attractive price or at all. We cannot predict the prices at which our common stock will trade. It is possible that in one or more future periods our results of operations may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors, and, as a result of these and other factors, the price of our common stock may fall.

Current wording

Although our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, an active or liquid market in our common stock may not be sustained. If a market for our common stock is not sustained, it may be difficult for you to sell your shares of common stock at an attractive price or at all. We cannot predict the prices at which our common stock will trade. It is possible that in one or more future periods our results of operations may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors, and, as a result of these and other factors, the price of our common stock may fall.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2026, 37,777,105 shares of our common stock were outstanding. Shares of unvested restricted common stock will become available for sale immediately upon the vesting of such shares, as applicable, and the expiration of any applicable market stand-off or lock-up agreements. Shares issued upon the exercise of stock options pursuant to future awards that may be granted under our equity incentive plans or pursuant to future awards granted under those plans will become available for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of applicable vesting schedules, any applicable market stand-off and lock-up agreements and Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2026, 37,806,269 shares of our common stock were outstanding. Shares of unvested restricted common stock will become available for sale immediately upon the vesting of such shares, as applicable, and the expiration of any applicable market stand-off or lock-up agreements. Shares issued upon the exercise of stock options pursuant to future awards that may be granted under our equity incentive plans or pursuant to future awards granted under those plans will become available for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of applicable vesting schedules, any applicable market stand-off and lock-up agreements and Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act.

Previous wording

Adverse developments that affect financial institutions, such as events involving liquidity that are rumored or actual, have in the past and may in the future lead to bank failures and market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, Signature Bank was also swept into receivership. The U.S. Department of Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board (the “Federal Reserve”), and the FDIC released a statement that indicated that all depositors of SVB would have access to all of their funds, including funds held in uninsured deposit accounts, after only one business day of closure. The U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve have announced a program to provide up to $25 billion of loans to financial institutions secured by certain of such government securities held by financial institutions to mitigate the risk of potential losses on the sale of such instruments, widespread demands for customer withdrawals or other liquidity needs of financial institutions for immediately liquidity may exceed the capacity of such program. There is no guarantee, however, that the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve will provide access to uninsured funds in the future in the event of the closure of other banks or financial institutions, or that they would do so in a timely fashion.

Current wording

Adverse developments that affect financial institutions, such as events involving liquidity that are rumored or actual, have in the past and may in the future lead to bank failures and market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, Signature Bank was also swept into receivership. The U.S. Department of Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board (the “Federal Reserve”), and the FDIC released a statement that indicated that all depositors of SVB would have access to all of their funds, including funds held in uninsured deposit accounts, after only one business day of closure. The U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve have announced a program to provide up to $25 billion of loans to financial institutions secured by certain government securities held by financial institutions to mitigate the risk of potential losses on the sale of such instruments, widespread demands for customer withdrawals or other liquidity needs of financial institutions for immediate liquidity may exceed the capacity of such program. There is no guarantee, however, that the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve will provide access to uninsured funds in the future in the event of the closure of other banks or financial institutions, or that they would do so in a timely fashion.