Science can already tell you what a molecule is and what it looks like. What it has never been able to tell you, cheaply and at scale, is how the thing behaves once it meets the messy conditions of the real world. That gap is where drugs quietly fail in trials, where food products miss the palate they were built for, and where, increasingly, artificial intelligence runs out of road.
Apoha, a London company spun out of 15 years of interfacial physics, says it has built the missing measurement. On 3 June it emerged from stealth with $36M in funding, announced at the Frontier Technologies Stage at SXSW London.
The round is led by Singular, with participation from Tim Draper’s Draper Associates and continued backing from seed investors Redalpine, Seedcamp, Wilbe and Nucleus, alongside grant funding from Innovate UK.
The company calls its data layer Liquid State Intelligence, a new category it places alongside sequence and structure. Where genomics digitised the language of biology and structural biology digitised design, Apoha wants to digitise behaviour: what matter actually does under stress. The funding, it says, will go toward making that a foundational data class for biologics, food, materials and physical-world AI.
The science traces to 2008, when founder and chief executive Shamit Shrivastava began working on a problem the Nobel-winning Hodgkin-Huxley model of nerve signalling had left open: the physics of the boundary where matter meets liquid.
He went on to publish evidence for two-dimensional solitary sound waves at a lipid interface in 2014, work the company says was later named among Scientific American’s discoveries that could change everything. In 2021 he co-founded Apoha with Anshika Srivastava, its chief operating officer and a former executive director at Goldman Sachs.
The company now holds more than 60 patents across hardware, software, data and AI models.
Its first product is VIBE, an empirical readout of how a sample behaves under controlled stress. The platform takes a quantity of material small enough to sit on a pinhead, suspends it in liquid, applies a sequence of perturbations, and records the wave patterns the molecule throws off in response.
Those patterns resolve into more than 1,000 measured descriptors of behaviour in a single reading, where conventional assays capture one property at a time. Within minutes, the company says, a VIBE readout can flag whether an experimental drug will fail before it reaches a trial.
The platform is already in commercial use, and the firmest evidence sits in a preprint. In joint research with Boehringer Ingelheim, a multi-year commercial partner, Apoha identified high-risk antibody candidates with greater than 90% precision from as little as 8 micrograms of material.
A second version of the benchmarking work reports the platform outperforming 12 industry-standard developability tests across 236 clinical antibodies, and surfacing information the conventional measures miss rather than duplicating them.
Other customers point to range. Apoha is working with German biotech Ethris on predicting how lipid nanoparticles carrying mRNA behave in animals, and with plant-based food company THIS on a protein replacement bound for supermarket shelves. It also lists Somru BioSciences and several Fortune 500 companies across pharma, food and materials.
The wider bet is that physical-world AI will eventually need this. Models have learned to see and read, and a generation of physical AI systems is now being built to act on matter. None of them can yet feel how a drug dissolves or how a flavour holds, because that data has never been collected at scale.
“It cannot be scraped from the internet, synthesised, or retrofitted from existing assays,” Shrivastava said. “It has to be measured.” Whether enough buyers agree to make a data class out of it is the question the next round will have to answer.
After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.
While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.
What is Skins?
Skins broke the teen drama mold
Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.
Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including DoctorWho’s Russell T. Davies and BlackMirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.
Release Date
2007 – 2013-00-00
Network
E4
Showrunner
Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley
Writers
Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley
Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life
The series was willing to show the highs and lows
Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.
With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.
Skins spawned several stars
Several actors are now household names
Credit: Warner Home Video
While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such asSuperman, TheGreenKnight, and Game of Thrones.
The show also featured small appearances by GetOut’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and TheGentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.
When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.
Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue
Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue
Credit: Warner Home Video
However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.
Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.
Skins wasn’t without its own controversies
A young cast brought several difficulties
That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.
While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.
Where to stream Skins
The series has a lasting legacy
Credit: Channel 4
For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.
Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.