4 ms·
Wouldn’t the Hoskins effect [1], or “original antigenic sin”, apply in this case? > the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilize immuno
by programmarchy 5y ago
Wouldn’t the Hoskins effect [1], or “original antigenic sin”, apply in this case?
> the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilize immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign pathogen (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
- anonuser123456 5y agoProbably not. B cells can return to germinal centers and undergo further affinity maturation. Hoskins effect does not block this process, but may slow it down. If the original antibody is still effective, no problem. Now, if the virus mutates to completely escape existing antibodies, we might have a different story. But in that story, the vaccinated are probably better off than the natural infection crowd. The vaccine targets a highly conserved region of the RBD; it is largely essential to bind to ACE2. Mutation there is likely to reduce binding affinity and thus become less infectious / virulent. Natural immunity however suffers from the problem that the body builds antibodies against other regions that are more prone to mutation. Some of those mutations have been shown to enhance infectiousness. So you could end up with a scenario where non RBD targeted antibodies enhance infectiousness while simultaneously you have slowed affinity maturation.