4 ms·

Role of spike in pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron

36 points by origin_path 4y ago

russianGuy83829 4y ago
- tmnstr85 4y ago
- eastbound 4y ago
  Who, the journalists? Article seems editorialized and they seem to have a bias towards spreading panic rather than making people reasonable.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    The article seems editorialized? It's a bioarxiv preprint! It's the study authors' own words that you're saying are "spreading panic". And, I really hate the "pretend the parent is saying the opposite of what they actually are" rhetorical trick you pulled. It's dirty and dishonest.
ifqwz 4y ago
Denvercoder9 4y ago
80% mortality rate in mice.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  For this one I don't want to find if it replicates in humans.
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    While it sounds very bad, and it is in fact horrible, just like Ebola, it wouldn't be able to cause a world wide pandemic killing millions of people as people would be much more caucious around it.
    - throw333 4y ago
    - etiam 4y ago
      Not entirely just like Ebola virus disease, considering it would still be an airborne virus and consequently be even more difficult to contain. I don't find that the outcomes from the latest 3 years of people being supposedly cautious inspire much confidence in the effectiveness of it, and I don't really see that changing (soon enough) even if the lethality spikes dramatically. Especially if the symptoms in the early phases were to stay relatively inconspicuous in a large fraction of cases.
RikNieu 4y ago
tjrileymass 4y ago
d0mine 4y ago
Keyframe 4y ago
Shiiit. So they do this to understand preemptively what might occur out there or?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  If I understand this correctly, they do this to show whether the vaccine-escape is controlled by the spike protein (it is), and whether the lethality is from the spike protein (it is not). The fact that it might kill us all doesn't seem to trouble their quest for knowledge...
c7b 4y ago
Trouble_007 4y ago
The paper Title is >Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron< >Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. In *K18-hACE2 Mice* , while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.
- origin_path 4y ago
  The "h" in the name of the mice stands for "humanized" so the fact that they did this experiment in mice is close to irrelevant, the cells being infected are genetically engineered to be the same as ours.
  - Protostome 4y ago
    Only the ACE2 receptor is human. The rest is of murine origin
sinuhe69 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
antegamisou 4y ago
Another completely editorialized submission rising to the front page. It's funny because a few days ago someone made a thread [1] asking for non-clickbait/non-sensationalist resources and almost all enthusiastically suggested HN. If only they knew... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33212499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33212499
- someguydave 4y ago
- origin_path 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    Ok, but surely you know that HN submitters aren't allowed to use the title field to editorialize, and certainly not on divisive topics. That would turn the entire site into a flamewar farm. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Yes, normally that'd be fine. Usually in submissions I only edit a title for length, but in this case: 1. The paper's actual title says so little about the study or why it's worth paying attention to it that I felt it was completely worthless. Given what they say in the abstract they did, do you think the current title is actually appropriate at all? It doesn't even communicate that they were engineering viruses, let alone the 80% fatality rate outcome which is what matters most here. 2. I still do not agree that the title chosen was "editorialized". It neutrally and accurately reflected the outcome of their study, as stated in their own abstract. A headline is supposed to summarize succinctly what the article is about or says - the current headline just doesn't do that. For anyone else wondering what this is about, the original title was (I think) this: "Researchers develop Omicron variant with 80% fatality rate" which is a correct summary of the research, that doesn't contain slant. The current one is "Role of spike in pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron", which appears to be selected to communicate as little as possible about the actual research.
joxel 4y ago
throw333 4y ago
readthenotes1 4y ago
"The authors have declared no competing interest." Not even, it seems, preservation of their species.

36 points by origin_path 4y ago

russianGuy83829 4y ago

tmnstr85 4y ago
eastbound 4y ago
Who, the journalists? Article seems editorialized and they seem to have a bias towards spreading panic rather than making people reasonable.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  The article seems editorialized? It's a bioarxiv preprint! It's the study authors' own words that you're saying are "spreading panic". And, I really hate the "pretend the parent is saying the opposite of what they actually are" rhetorical trick you pulled. It's dirty and dishonest.

ifqwz 4y ago

Denvercoder9 4y ago

80% mortality rate in mice.

ekianjo 4y ago
For this one I don't want to find if it replicates in humans.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  While it sounds very bad, and it is in fact horrible, just like Ebola, it wouldn't be able to cause a world wide pandemic killing millions of people as people would be much more caucious around it.
  - throw333 4y ago
  - etiam 4y ago
    Not entirely just like Ebola virus disease, considering it would still be an airborne virus and consequently be even more difficult to contain. I don't find that the outcomes from the latest 3 years of people being supposedly cautious inspire much confidence in the effectiveness of it, and I don't really see that changing (soon enough) even if the lethality spikes dramatically. Especially if the symptoms in the early phases were to stay relatively inconspicuous in a large fraction of cases.

RikNieu 4y ago

tjrileymass 4y ago

d0mine 4y ago

Keyframe 4y ago

Shiiit. So they do this to understand preemptively what might occur out there or?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
If I understand this correctly, they do this to show whether the vaccine-escape is controlled by the spike protein (it is), and whether the lethality is from the spike protein (it is not). The fact that it might kill us all doesn't seem to trouble their quest for knowledge...

c7b 4y ago

Trouble_007 4y ago

The paper Title is >Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron< >Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. In *K18-hACE2 Mice* , while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.

origin_path 4y ago
The "h" in the name of the mice stands for "humanized" so the fact that they did this experiment in mice is close to irrelevant, the cells being infected are genetically engineered to be the same as ours.
- Protostome 4y ago
  Only the ACE2 receptor is human. The rest is of murine origin

sinuhe69 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

antegamisou 4y ago

Another completely editorialized submission rising to the front page. It's funny because a few days ago someone made a thread [1] asking for non-clickbait/non-sensationalist resources and almost all enthusiastically suggested HN. If only they knew... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33212499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33212499

someguydave 4y ago
origin_path 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, but surely you know that HN submitters aren't allowed to use the title field to editorialize, and certainly not on divisive topics. That would turn the entire site into a flamewar farm. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Yes, normally that'd be fine. Usually in submissions I only edit a title for length, but in this case: 1. The paper's actual title says so little about the study or why it's worth paying attention to it that I felt it was completely worthless. Given what they say in the abstract they did, do you think the current title is actually appropriate at all? It doesn't even communicate that they were engineering viruses, let alone the 80% fatality rate outcome which is what matters most here. 2. I still do not agree that the title chosen was "editorialized". It neutrally and accurately reflected the outcome of their study, as stated in their own abstract. A headline is supposed to summarize succinctly what the article is about or says - the current headline just doesn't do that. For anyone else wondering what this is about, the original title was (I think) this: "Researchers develop Omicron variant with 80% fatality rate" which is a correct summary of the research, that doesn't contain slant. The current one is "Role of spike in pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron", which appears to be selected to communicate as little as possible about the actual research.

joxel 4y ago

throw333 4y ago

readthenotes1 4y ago

"The authors have declared no competing interest." Not even, it seems, preservation of their species.