3 ms·
I'm wondering if you could clarify a couple things for me: 1) "Skipping steps" This appears to be doing the opposite. In an old vaccine, you'd just dump a bunc
by orblivion 6y ago
I'm wondering if you could clarify a couple things for me:
1) "Skipping steps" This appears to be doing the opposite. In an old vaccine, you'd just dump a bunch of spike proteins into the system. Here, you're adding the step of making the body produce them. Could you clarify?
2) Why not just produce those spikes in a lab? Is it just much less resource intensive to have the bodies make them?
3) As far as stressing that this doesn't alter DNA: Wouldn't it suffice to say "this does what viruses already do, but less"?
- bsmith89 6y ago1) Yeah, besides picking the step of manufacturing virus parts, I agree, this is going a step back in the virus's life cycle. 2) It's hard to produce proteins in the lab. Our own cells are pro at it, though, including all of the post-translational modifications (like attaching sugars and careful protein folding) that can make all the difference. 3) Pretty much. Since it's just one gene being introduced, it will not produce new virions, only the spike protein that our immune system needs to recognize. Source: Am microbiologists, although not a virologist.
- orblivion 6y ago1) Ah, so manufacturing skips a step. Makes sense.