3 ms·

> Also it's not like this type of research helped us predict or even fight the pandemic. Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses a

> Also it's not like this type of research helped us predict or even fight the pandemic. Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses and it not only failed to predict this pandemic, but none of the research helped in anyway combating it. I was under the impression this research was partly responsible for quickly identifying parts of the virus that are conserved in evolution, thus making them good targets for mRNA vaccines. If vaccine manufacturers had targeted proteins that have high rates of mutation, it would allow the virus to evade vaccine immunity faster, potentially making vaccines useless by the time they were actually rolled out.

Izkata 4y ago
The spike protein was selected because the virus was already well-adapted to humans and they assumed changes to the spike protein would make it less-fit and not able to infect as readily. They were wrong. > If vaccine manufacturers had targeted proteins that have high rates of mutation, it would allow the virus to evade vaccine immunity faster, potentially making vaccines useless by the time they were actually rolled out. This is what happened - the variant later named Delta was first identified in Oct 2020, long before the vaccines were released. If anything the vaccines helped it become the dominant one.
- cdtwigg 4y ago
  I guess I would have assumed the opposite? A virus that just jumped from bats to humans is expected to evolve pretty quickly in the binding domain as it “learns” to better target human ACE2. I thought the reason they targeted spike was that it’s on the surface of the virus and so an obvious target for antibodies to attach, whereas if you target some structural proteins deep inside the viral structure you’re taking a risk that the antibodies won’t be able to reach them.
- peter422 4y ago
  The spike protein was selected because prior research into SARS and MERS showed that vaccines targeting the spike had the best immune response as compared to other proteins. They were aware it could mutate because the spike of SARS2 was different than SARS or MERS. Also vaccines against the ancestral stain are still quite effective at preventing serious disease against every variant we've seen so far. I don't know what point you are trying to make but you are basing it on incorrect information.
  - rossdavidh 4y ago
    This is an important point. The research that, as I understand it (and IANAVirologist), helped jump-start the covid-19 vaccines was related to SARS and MERS, two coronaviruses that were already known to have infected humans, often lethally (and thus of urgent importance to study). Nobody (that I know of) objects to virologists studying existing viruses such as SARS and MERS. If the researchers in the article had just been studying wild-type covid-19, well it still should have been in a highest-safety lab, but it would have been less objectionable than this. Labs which are below the highest level of containment, could and should be studying coronaviruses of the sort that cause common colds (there are 4 of them, as I understand it). Making new (or hybrid) ones is not something that any but the highest level of containment facilities should be allowed to do.

Izkata 4y ago

The spike protein was selected because the virus was already well-adapted to humans and they assumed changes to the spike protein would make it less-fit and not able to infect as readily. They were wrong. > If vaccine manufacturers had targeted proteins that have high rates of mutation, it would allow the virus to evade vaccine immunity faster, potentially making vaccines useless by the time they were actually rolled out. This is what happened - the variant later named Delta was first identified in Oct 2020, long before the vaccines were released. If anything the vaccines helped it become the dominant one.

cdtwigg 4y ago
I guess I would have assumed the opposite? A virus that just jumped from bats to humans is expected to evolve pretty quickly in the binding domain as it “learns” to better target human ACE2. I thought the reason they targeted spike was that it’s on the surface of the virus and so an obvious target for antibodies to attach, whereas if you target some structural proteins deep inside the viral structure you’re taking a risk that the antibodies won’t be able to reach them.
peter422 4y ago
The spike protein was selected because prior research into SARS and MERS showed that vaccines targeting the spike had the best immune response as compared to other proteins. They were aware it could mutate because the spike of SARS2 was different than SARS or MERS. Also vaccines against the ancestral stain are still quite effective at preventing serious disease against every variant we've seen so far. I don't know what point you are trying to make but you are basing it on incorrect information.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  This is an important point. The research that, as I understand it (and IANAVirologist), helped jump-start the covid-19 vaccines was related to SARS and MERS, two coronaviruses that were already known to have infected humans, often lethally (and thus of urgent importance to study). Nobody (that I know of) objects to virologists studying existing viruses such as SARS and MERS. If the researchers in the article had just been studying wild-type covid-19, well it still should have been in a highest-safety lab, but it would have been less objectionable than this. Labs which are below the highest level of containment, could and should be studying coronaviruses of the sort that cause common colds (there are 4 of them, as I understand it). Making new (or hybrid) ones is not something that any but the highest level of containment facilities should be allowed to do.