Chat message
Slack / Private Message Drop, p.371 [SLACK_000585] · slack_pm:msg:03868
Page text: p.371 · original PDF
- Date
- 2021-01-09 10:11
- Type
- chat message · slack
- recipient
- Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
- speaker
- Kristian G. Andersen
- Topics
- Vaccines
Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.
> I am trying to decide if this is a 'phase-change' in the evolution of the virus (i.e., driven by standing immunity)I have been wondering about this myself - definitely feels like it. The areas where we have seen these popping uphave had a lot of COVID-19 going around, so a fair bit of standing immunity. I absolutely hope not though - it's apretty scary thought and I have no idea how driving vaccines into a raging pandemic will change that landscape.> Pooh - love it :wink:. Bob, how does the RRRAR affect the predicted O-Glyc? Presumably knock out one of the predicted sites? And just to get back to a question we talked about a couple of days ago - (a) might E484K just be overall better atevading immunity or is it just that it (b) changes an important epitope? I have been thinking about this a lot... I had been leaning towards the former, but now I'm getting increasingly concerned it's the latter. Mostly based on this paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.06.425392v2.full.pdf. Is it possible that the combo of Doug, Eeek, and Nelly simply leads to a virus that have such a high affinity for ACE2 that the spike-ACE2 interaction more effectively outcompetes spike-NAb binding? Not inconceivable - I mean, take a look at the difference in binding affinity here: [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 10.01.04 AM.png]
Links shared
- preprint https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.06.425392v2.full.pdf