Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.339 [SLACK_000553] · slack_pm:msg:03566

Date: 2020-12-22 09:38
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

Interesting difference between SC1 and SC2 is that it was pretty darn quick in the former - essentially happened right after the jump from intermediate hosts. Slower for SC2, but it's probably because it was pretty darn good atbinding already.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
Interesting difference between SC1 and SC2 is that it was pretty darn quick in the former - essentially happened right after the jump from intermediate hosts.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Interesting difference between SC1 and SC2 is that it was pretty darn quick in the former - essentially happened right after the jump from intermediate hosts.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-12-22 08:28 Robert F. Garry open

The equivalent amino acids to SC1 479 and 487 in terms of alignment to RBD appear to me to be 493 and 501, but Ineed to really take a closer look at ALL the structures.
2020-12-22 08:52 Robert F. Garry open

Those are the same and it's the alignment in PO1.
2020-12-22 08:54 Robert F. Garry open

SC1 479 and SC2 493 interact with ACE2 similarly - however SC1 487 and SC2 501 interactions with ACE2 are completely different... *Correction - not completely different - just different*
2020-12-22 09:21 Robert F. Garry open

The pattern of prolines in SC1 and SC2 RBDs are distinct - look at PO1 - which creates a very different interaction with ACE2 - but we're seeing in real time the adaptation of SC2 to receptors in humans, minks and mice pretty muchas you'd draw it up. The twist that it may be immune selection driving better receptor binding is not expected at leastby me. Tuning up receptor binding affinity happened in SARS1 per the JVI paper above, but more subtle and [probably?] not an immune component there in 2002 and 2005.
2020-12-22 09:38 Kristian G. Andersen

Interesting difference between SC1 and SC2 is that it was pretty darn quick in the former - essentially happened right after the jump from intermediate hosts. Slower for SC2, but it's probably because it was pretty darn good atbinding already.
2020-12-22 10:33 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, so this "We present evidence that the Spike H69/V70 is a fitness enhancing change that may be stabilising other S gene mutations" from Gupta's recent preprint is what worries me the most and I'm wondering if E484K (or N417K) could play a similar role in the SA lineage that H69/V70 is playing in the UK lineage. Add Nelly on top ofthat, and you might end up with what we're observing now.
2020-12-22 10:33 Kristian G. Andersen open

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.14.422555v3.full.pdf

Full conversation →