4 ms·

mRNA vaccines produce antibodies targeting just the spike protein( S protein). There are other proteins on the virus like the M protein. Antibodies produced

by adrr 5y ago

mRNA vaccines produce antibodies targeting just the spike protein( S protein). There are other proteins on the virus like the M protein. Antibodies produced during an infection may target other parts of the virus so you can’t compare the two.

selcuka 5y ago
Isn't it the spike protein that is usually different between these variants? In that case antibodies that target a different part should even be more effective.
- cmckn 5y ago
  The vaccines target specific (and multiple) regions of the spike protein, so a given mutation of the protein is not likely to make a vaccine null and void (hence the current success of the vaccines against variants). A "natural" COVID infection could lead to similar protection, or less; but it's not likely that a natural infection gives you some kind of AAA protection. Being infected can also hurt you, after all. There is literally no downside to receiving the vaccine if you've already had COVID, so I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated regardless :)
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    It's not quite no downside. It may be inconvenient (especially if you live in a country where you can't necessarily get time off work to seek medical treatment) and you're quite likely to have a sore arm. Some people experience fever, headaches, or other annoying symptoms for a day or even longer. I had a powerful craving for a kebab, at like 0400 when all the kebab shops are closed, maybe a coincidence, but maybe not. If you told me I can get a free Coke, but I have to take an hour off work and then my arm will be sore for two days, I think I'll pass on your "free" Coke. Now, of course the excellent chance of becoming immune to a respiratory infection that's killing loads of people is a much better offer than a Coke. So I agree people should take up this offer, get yourself vaccinated - but we shouldn't claim "literally no downside".
    - selcuka 5y ago
      Not the OP, but to be fair the exact quote was: > no downside to receiving the vaccine if you've already had COVID So I assume that this means that there is no difference in potential unwanted effects between persons who have already had COVID and who have not.
      - tialaramex 5y ago
        Fair
    - greg5green 5y ago
      >I had a powerful craving for a kebab, at like 0400 when all the kebab shops are closed, maybe a coincidence, but maybe not to be fair, you could have scheduled your shot at a different time so the kebab shops would have been open amirite
    - cmckn 5y ago
      I totally take your point, but frankly, I’m not interested in convincing someone who would avoid the vax because of the (minor, very manageable) side effects. I’ll let the public health folks tackle that one ;) I honestly hoped I had more side effects! You know you’re not getting sick, so a mild fever? Kind of a perverse pleasure.
      - tialaramex 5y ago
        With the AstraZeneca vaccine (and presumably J&J would be similar) a consideration is that the side effects you see might actually have to do with the platform itself. Unlike the mRNA platforms, these vaccines use an existing virus to make the spike proteins. Specifically, an Adenovirus (so the sort of thing that might be implicated in some colds) but which ordinarily thrives in Chimpanzees instead of Humans, so they can have confidence you aren't immune to it already. The virus is altered to tell human cells to make the protein chosen by the engineers (for COVID-19 this was the spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus); and not more copies of itself, once the copies in the vaccine injection are cleaned up (typically a few hours to a few days) the virus is gone, so you can't "catch" the virus. But of course your immune system has no particular reason not to destroy this (harmless) Chimp virus meanwhile, it shouldn't be in your body, so it's every bit as much a target as the spike proteins we want immunity against. Thus, it's certainly possible any fever one particular patient suffers is a side effect from their immune defence against this poor harmless chimp adenovirus, and nothing to do with SARS-nCOV-2 or its spike protein. No way to tell for sure I believe.
  - selcuka 5y ago
    So are mRNA vaccines are more effective than conventional (i.e. dead virus) vaccines and natural immunity because they target a smaller set of proteins, effectively telling the immune system exactly which protein to produce antibodies for?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - o-__-o 5y ago
    20 million people tested positive before vaccines became abundant. Let’s stay on the topic of those people protection levels :)
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  Yes, but it also is the part that the virus uses to bind to and enter a cell. It can mutate to a certain extent, but there are limitations to how much can change about it without destroying its ability to actually infect individuals. On the other hand, there is some concern around the phenomenon known as "original antigenic sin". Its unknown if it is or will ever be an issue with Covid, but it essentially means that for some viruses (such as the flu), your immune system imprints on a virus the first time it encounters it, and more heavily relies on immunity for that particular virus than new antibodies for variants of that virus later on. This leads to the body mounting a sub-optimal defence against new strains of the virus (which is in part why we have yearly flu vaccines that don't offer amazing protection). There is some concern that there is a possibility that over time covid will continue to mutate and those whose initial infection was natural won't have as protective immunity as those who were vaccinated first, precisely because the vaccine only targets the spike protein and not the entire virus: "Still, Hensley isn’t worried about imprinting — or at least not among people who have been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. The very strong immune response generated by the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines should override any imprinting impacts as SARS-2 mutates, he said. Hensley worries, though, that people whose immunity to the virus comes from infection, not vaccination, might have more difficulty handling variant viruses because of imprinting effects. David Topham, an immunologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center and director of the New York Influenza Center of Excellence, also envisages that possibility. He noted that, in the earliest stages of SARS-2 infection, the immune system mounts a response to a portion of the spike protein called S2. Later, the immune system focuses its attention on other parts of the spike, notably the part of the protein that attaches the virus to cells it invades, known as the receptor binding domain. It’s not yet known if the early focus on S2 — which doesn’t change much from virus to virus — will blind the immune system to the changes elsewhere in the spike protein, the changes updated vaccines would be trying to teach the immune system to respond to, Topham said. Topham doesn’t think this will be a problem in vaccinated people, because of the way the vaccines in use have been designed. The spike proteins they trigger production of appear to hide the S2 region, he said. The immune system can’t fixate on something it doesn’t see. For people whose immunity comes from infection, Topham sees three possible scenarios. “It can be a problem, because the immune cells specific for S2 outcompete immune cells against other components of the spike protein that you really need in order to get protection. It can be inconsequential in that eventually the responses to the other parts of the protein catch up and it doesn’t matter. Or it could actually be a benefit because it gets the immune system revved up more quickly.”[0] [0] https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/16/next-generation-covid-19-vaccines-are-supposed-to-be-better-some-experts-worry-they-could-be-worse/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/16/next-generation-covid-19...

by adrr 5y ago

selcuka 5y ago

Isn't it the spike protein that is usually different between these variants? In that case antibodies that target a different part should even be more effective.

cmckn 5y ago
The vaccines target specific (and multiple) regions of the spike protein, so a given mutation of the protein is not likely to make a vaccine null and void (hence the current success of the vaccines against variants). A "natural" COVID infection could lead to similar protection, or less; but it's not likely that a natural infection gives you some kind of AAA protection. Being infected can also hurt you, after all. There is literally no downside to receiving the vaccine if you've already had COVID, so I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated regardless :)
- tialaramex 5y ago
  It's not quite no downside. It may be inconvenient (especially if you live in a country where you can't necessarily get time off work to seek medical treatment) and you're quite likely to have a sore arm. Some people experience fever, headaches, or other annoying symptoms for a day or even longer. I had a powerful craving for a kebab, at like 0400 when all the kebab shops are closed, maybe a coincidence, but maybe not. If you told me I can get a free Coke, but I have to take an hour off work and then my arm will be sore for two days, I think I'll pass on your "free" Coke. Now, of course the excellent chance of becoming immune to a respiratory infection that's killing loads of people is a much better offer than a Coke. So I agree people should take up this offer, get yourself vaccinated - but we shouldn't claim "literally no downside".
  - selcuka 5y ago
    Not the OP, but to be fair the exact quote was: > no downside to receiving the vaccine if you've already had COVID So I assume that this means that there is no difference in potential unwanted effects between persons who have already had COVID and who have not.
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      Fair
  - greg5green 5y ago
    >I had a powerful craving for a kebab, at like 0400 when all the kebab shops are closed, maybe a coincidence, but maybe not to be fair, you could have scheduled your shot at a different time so the kebab shops would have been open amirite
  - cmckn 5y ago
    I totally take your point, but frankly, I’m not interested in convincing someone who would avoid the vax because of the (minor, very manageable) side effects. I’ll let the public health folks tackle that one ;) I honestly hoped I had more side effects! You know you’re not getting sick, so a mild fever? Kind of a perverse pleasure.
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      With the AstraZeneca vaccine (and presumably J&J would be similar) a consideration is that the side effects you see might actually have to do with the platform itself. Unlike the mRNA platforms, these vaccines use an existing virus to make the spike proteins. Specifically, an Adenovirus (so the sort of thing that might be implicated in some colds) but which ordinarily thrives in Chimpanzees instead of Humans, so they can have confidence you aren't immune to it already. The virus is altered to tell human cells to make the protein chosen by the engineers (for COVID-19 this was the spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus); and not more copies of itself, once the copies in the vaccine injection are cleaned up (typically a few hours to a few days) the virus is gone, so you can't "catch" the virus. But of course your immune system has no particular reason not to destroy this (harmless) Chimp virus meanwhile, it shouldn't be in your body, so it's every bit as much a target as the spike proteins we want immunity against. Thus, it's certainly possible any fever one particular patient suffers is a side effect from their immune defence against this poor harmless chimp adenovirus, and nothing to do with SARS-nCOV-2 or its spike protein. No way to tell for sure I believe.
- selcuka 5y ago
  So are mRNA vaccines are more effective than conventional (i.e. dead virus) vaccines and natural immunity because they target a smaller set of proteins, effectively telling the immune system exactly which protein to produce antibodies for?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- o-__-o 5y ago
  20 million people tested positive before vaccines became abundant. Let’s stay on the topic of those people protection levels :)
bart_spoon 5y ago
Yes, but it also is the part that the virus uses to bind to and enter a cell. It can mutate to a certain extent, but there are limitations to how much can change about it without destroying its ability to actually infect individuals. On the other hand, there is some concern around the phenomenon known as "original antigenic sin". Its unknown if it is or will ever be an issue with Covid, but it essentially means that for some viruses (such as the flu), your immune system imprints on a virus the first time it encounters it, and more heavily relies on immunity for that particular virus than new antibodies for variants of that virus later on. This leads to the body mounting a sub-optimal defence against new strains of the virus (which is in part why we have yearly flu vaccines that don't offer amazing protection). There is some concern that there is a possibility that over time covid will continue to mutate and those whose initial infection was natural won't have as protective immunity as those who were vaccinated first, precisely because the vaccine only targets the spike protein and not the entire virus: "Still, Hensley isn’t worried about imprinting — or at least not among people who have been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. The very strong immune response generated by the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines should override any imprinting impacts as SARS-2 mutates, he said. Hensley worries, though, that people whose immunity to the virus comes from infection, not vaccination, might have more difficulty handling variant viruses because of imprinting effects. David Topham, an immunologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center and director of the New York Influenza Center of Excellence, also envisages that possibility. He noted that, in the earliest stages of SARS-2 infection, the immune system mounts a response to a portion of the spike protein called S2. Later, the immune system focuses its attention on other parts of the spike, notably the part of the protein that attaches the virus to cells it invades, known as the receptor binding domain. It’s not yet known if the early focus on S2 — which doesn’t change much from virus to virus — will blind the immune system to the changes elsewhere in the spike protein, the changes updated vaccines would be trying to teach the immune system to respond to, Topham said. Topham doesn’t think this will be a problem in vaccinated people, because of the way the vaccines in use have been designed. The spike proteins they trigger production of appear to hide the S2 region, he said. The immune system can’t fixate on something it doesn’t see. For people whose immunity comes from infection, Topham sees three possible scenarios. “It can be a problem, because the immune cells specific for S2 outcompete immune cells against other components of the spike protein that you really need in order to get protection. It can be inconsequential in that eventually the responses to the other parts of the protein catch up and it doesn’t matter. Or it could actually be a benefit because it gets the immune system revved up more quickly.”[0] [0] https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/16/next-generation-covid-19-vaccines-are-supposed-to-be-better-some-experts-worry-they-could-be-worse/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/16/next-generation-covid-19...