29 ms·

Immediate PB2-E627K amino acid substitution after single infection (...)

14 points by greenavocado 1y ago

ortusdux 1y ago
See also: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5414642/trump-vaccine-bird-flu-mrna https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5414642/trump-vaccine-b...
xhkkffbf 1y ago
What could possibly go wrong?
hall0ween 1y ago
After reading the abstract, this title seems to me like flame/click-bait. This test has been done in mice only (since no other animal was mentioned in the abstract). If one follows the scientific method, this means whatever conclusion the authors make can only be extended to mice. Extrapolation to “mammals” is not present in the abstract implicitly or explicitly.
- hall0ween 1y ago
  > Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. It’s not clear from the abstract that any human-made changes were made to the H5N1 either.
CBLT 1y ago
The paper is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be supporting your title? I'm just past the part where they showed 100% infection rate in mice.
- Copenjin 1y ago
  > resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection.
  - CBLT 1y ago
    I thought so too, but later on in the paper they mention that they performed necropsy on the mice that survived. > samples from surviving mice on day 12 were also obtained through necropsy to measure viral titers.
  - greenavocado 1y ago
    Not only that, but just a month earlier, South Korean scientists published another Virology Journal paper revealing that they had engineered a chimeric H5N1 virus using hallmark gain-of-function (GOF) techniques, combining gene segments from three different influenza viruses to increase the virus's heat resistance, alter host targeting, and enhance human cell entry. "Recombinant viruses were generated using a pHW2000 plasmid-based reverse genetics system." "Combining the R90K and H110Y mutations (22W_KY) resulted in a synergistic increase in thermal stability and maintained HA activity without measurable reduction even after 4 h at 52 °C." "22 W HA and 22 W NA genes, along with six internal genomic segments (PB2, PB1, PA, NP, M, NS) from PR8 and a PB2 gene from 01310 containing the I66M, I109V, and I133V (MVV) mutations" The study also confirmed enhanced antigen uptake and intracellular penetration in human cells: "The highest level of intracellular entry was observed for BEI_22W_KY, confirming its superior effectiveness in penetrating cells." Ref: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02760-4 https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-...
- close04 1y ago
  > In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. What's not supported from the title is that they only tested in mice. But they do keep mentioning "mammalian adaptation" so it might just be that it's expected all mammals to suffer the same fate without certain adaptations.
close04 1y ago
The next era of MAD won't be with bigger bombs but with bio-weapons. Easier to disseminate, potentially deadlier than an entire arsenal of nukes, and maybe even more selective if it can be designed to be targeted or only one side has the vaccine.
- greenavocado 1y ago
  We have been told our whole lives that nuclear winter will be the end of humanity, but in reality, biomedical scientists will exterminate us.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  Everyone knows that such bioweapons cannot be contained, which is why they don't get used. Vaccines are very problematic because they don't reliably work for mutations, and have side effects of their own.
Jtsummers 1y ago
I've flagged this submission. The title is editorialized and indicates an event occurred which didn't (or at least is not supported by this paper). The South Korean lab did not make bird flu 100% lethal, they studied an in-the-wild bird flu and ran experiments on mice.
- greenavocado 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    It's not BS. You did editorialize the title, that's obvious to everyone. And your title also suggests that the researchers modified the virus, they did not. They used an existing mutation in their experiments.
    - greenavocado 1y ago
      I changed the title. Please unflag.
      - Jtsummers 1y ago
        > Please unflag. No. Your title is still editorialized. EDIT: And to add, from how you've edited your original reply to me I'm disinclined to ever do anything for you, no matter how politely you phrase it.
        greenavocado 1y ago
        Fine, I changed it to the utterly useless original title to satisfy the HN rule of "no editorialization."
    - noworriesnate 1y ago
      Existing as in another lab created that mutation or existing as in that mutation evolved naturally in the wild?

14 points by greenavocado 1y ago

See also: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5414642/trump-vaccine-bird-flu-mrna https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5414642/trump-vaccine-b...

xhkkffbf 1y ago

What could possibly go wrong?

hall0ween 1y ago

After reading the abstract, this title seems to me like flame/click-bait. This test has been done in mice only (since no other animal was mentioned in the abstract). If one follows the scientific method, this means whatever conclusion the authors make can only be extended to mice. Extrapolation to “mammals” is not present in the abstract implicitly or explicitly.

hall0ween 1y ago
> Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. It’s not clear from the abstract that any human-made changes were made to the H5N1 either.

CBLT 1y ago

The paper is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be supporting your title? I'm just past the part where they showed 100% infection rate in mice.

Copenjin 1y ago
> resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection.
- CBLT 1y ago
  I thought so too, but later on in the paper they mention that they performed necropsy on the mice that survived. > samples from surviving mice on day 12 were also obtained through necropsy to measure viral titers.
- greenavocado 1y ago
  Not only that, but just a month earlier, South Korean scientists published another Virology Journal paper revealing that they had engineered a chimeric H5N1 virus using hallmark gain-of-function (GOF) techniques, combining gene segments from three different influenza viruses to increase the virus's heat resistance, alter host targeting, and enhance human cell entry. "Recombinant viruses were generated using a pHW2000 plasmid-based reverse genetics system." "Combining the R90K and H110Y mutations (22W_KY) resulted in a synergistic increase in thermal stability and maintained HA activity without measurable reduction even after 4 h at 52 °C." "22 W HA and 22 W NA genes, along with six internal genomic segments (PB2, PB1, PA, NP, M, NS) from PR8 and a PB2 gene from 01310 containing the I66M, I109V, and I133V (MVV) mutations" The study also confirmed enhanced antigen uptake and intracellular penetration in human cells: "The highest level of intracellular entry was observed for BEI_22W_KY, confirming its superior effectiveness in penetrating cells." Ref: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02760-4 https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-...
close04 1y ago
> In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. What's not supported from the title is that they only tested in mice. But they do keep mentioning "mammalian adaptation" so it might just be that it's expected all mammals to suffer the same fate without certain adaptations.

close04 1y ago

The next era of MAD won't be with bigger bombs but with bio-weapons. Easier to disseminate, potentially deadlier than an entire arsenal of nukes, and maybe even more selective if it can be designed to be targeted or only one side has the vaccine.

greenavocado 1y ago
We have been told our whole lives that nuclear winter will be the end of humanity, but in reality, biomedical scientists will exterminate us.
OutOfHere 1y ago
Everyone knows that such bioweapons cannot be contained, which is why they don't get used. Vaccines are very problematic because they don't reliably work for mutations, and have side effects of their own.

Jtsummers 1y ago

I've flagged this submission. The title is editorialized and indicates an event occurred which didn't (or at least is not supported by this paper). The South Korean lab did not make bird flu 100% lethal, they studied an in-the-wild bird flu and ran experiments on mice.

greenavocado 1y ago
[flagged]
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  It's not BS. You did editorialize the title, that's obvious to everyone. And your title also suggests that the researchers modified the virus, they did not. They used an existing mutation in their experiments.
  - greenavocado 1y ago
    I changed the title. Please unflag.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      > Please unflag. No. Your title is still editorialized. EDIT: And to add, from how you've edited your original reply to me I'm disinclined to ever do anything for you, no matter how politely you phrase it.
      - greenavocado 1y ago
        Fine, I changed it to the utterly useless original title to satisfy the HN rule of "no editorialization."
  - noworriesnate 1y ago
    Existing as in another lab created that mutation or existing as in that mutation evolved naturally in the wild?