3 ms·
False. That logic does not hold unless you also assume that the presence of protein B means no antibodies to protein A will be developed. There is zero evidence
by torstenvl 5y ago
False. That logic does not hold unless you also assume that the presence of protein B means no antibodies to protein A will be developed. There is zero evidence of such a phenomenon. Indeed, that's why many high-specificity antibody tests require an immunoassay — the infection causes antibodies to each of the envelope proteins. If antibody development were an either-or proposition as is required by your argument, immunoassays would not — could not — work.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> the infection causes antibodies to each of the envelope proteins. That's interesting, I was not aware of that there was always antibodies to all envelope proteins. Do you have links to more information on the topic? How does this work when some of the envelope proteins are common, ones that occur in other non-viral sources?
- torstenvl 5y agoThere aren't always antibodies to all envelope proteins. That's too strong of a claim. Sometimes antibodies to early stage precursors fade before antibodies to others are developed. I'd recommend reading about the HIV virion as an example with multiple proteins and needing multiple detected antibodies for a positive diagnosis. It's a good virus to read about due to the immense amount of research put into it.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoDoesn't that contradict your statement above - "There is zero evidence of such a phenomenon" ?
- torstenvl 5y agoNo...? No rational person could draw that conclusion. Where exactly are you seeing evidence that the presence of protein A means antibodies to protein B will not be developed?
- bluGill 5y agoI did not assume no other proteins.