Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#71

Post by codefreeordie »

mlyle wrote: post #63
unsupp0rted wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about that. There are probably hundreds or thousands of still-viable mutations it might come up with at random, and we don't want to inject dozens of vaccine candidates to deal with them. Or maybe we do? A lot of adults have probably had a dozen or two dozen varying flu shots.

It's not like the virus waits until we start hitting it with a vaccine, and then mutates in response. There's a certain amount of variation in the population. More fit genes are more common. If there's other variations of this portion of the spike protein out there, they're almost certainly less fit than the overwhelmingly predominant type. Maybe if the predominant type is severely attenuated by vaccine these will ge…

If absolutely no other variations of this part of the spike exist then the antibody could remain effective and our use of it wouldn't materially push the virus to mutate.

But, if any (survivable) variations do exist, their survival advantage would grow tremendously once this antibody saw widespread use in treatments, which would lead to the variations likely becoming dominant quite rapidly thereafter.

Still, there's no reason not to keep searching and studying. We may be able to make an effective treatment based on this.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#72

Post by maegul »

robbiep wrote: post #56
maegul wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, from the article: > Once the virus has bound to ACE2, it must complete a final step: fusing its outer membrane with the membrane of our cells. This throws the door open to infection. Using a novel live-cell imaging platform, Alex Kreutzberger, HMS instructor in pediatrics at Boston Children’s, and Tomas Kirchhausen, professor of cell biology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS and professor of pediatrics at Boston…

> If mutations at this site are possible, how would this be an evolutionary deadens in a way that the current evolutionary dynamics of the virus are not? * Surely a lack of mutations at this site, on their face, imply only that there is no evolutionary pressure on the site and its phenotypes, and, that mutations at this site are as viable as anywhere else? * Or, is it possible that the lack of mutations (presuming th…

Thanks! Can’t help but wonder how conserved the relevant site actually is.

I wonder because targeting such a site seems to me like the premise of this kind of research: find “mission critical” highly conserved genes and then clinically target them.

And yet, scanning the paper’s abstract and introduction (the paper is linked in the posted article) I couldn’t find any mention of any highly conserved genome site. As a layperson I may have missed it, but still, if it’s a fundamental premise, I would have expected a conspicuous statement.

Instead, the paper reads to me like one concerned with a novel method for developing new antibodies with new methods of action. Not, as the article states, mechanisms of action against “mission critical” genes.

If I’m wrong, please let me know. But at the moment, I’m suspecting a misstep on the part of the scientific journalism here.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#73

Post by chriskanan »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #46
Jalad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would make a lot of sense if "any patents arising from research done with monies given by will confer on a lifetime perpetual non-exclusive right to use and re-license said patent on what ever terms they deem acceptable." If this were implemented, wouldn't it just be the case that no one would take your money?

Perhaps, I haven't been personally involved in a university lab looking for grant money so I don't know if they would turn down a grant if it required that any patentable work be also licensed to the grantor organization. And to be clear, I don't expect this situation to change any time soon. Just annoyed by it.

That actually is a requirement with many DoD grants, in my experience. In general, such a clause would have to get additional approval from lawyers/grant admins at the university.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#74

Post by throwawaylinux »

HWR_14 wrote: post #44
jjcon wrote: post #7

Can anyone with more knowledge on this topic than me (I’m no expert) assuage my fears: by giving human populations such artificial resistances (non-live vaccines) we run the risk of selecting for viruses that are even harder for even our own immune systems to detect and destroy. Current Covid strains don’t seem all that bad, basically everyone I know has been infected now. Might we run the risk of making things worse…

> by giving human populations such artificial resistances (non-live vaccines) we run the risk of selecting for viruses that are even harder for even our own immune systems to detect and destroy I can put your fears to bed. That shouldn't happen. How vaccines work is they teach a very specific signature to our bodies so it can be destroyed as soon as it appears. . Therefore, any selection pressure would just be to not…

Some of foremost vaccine companies and medical experts in the world all but promised the COVID vaccines would give immunity to the disease and prevent it being transmitted.

So they really have far less of a grasp of vaccine effects in even that a very narrow situation than you would think. So I don't think you can just put this to bed with a few sentences starting with "it shouldn't happen"!

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#75

Post by ChuckMcM »

hkt wrote: post #67
ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

From the article: The researchers have applied for patents on both the antibodies and the mouse model used to produce them. They hope to see their work developed commercially. ... followed by This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-021989), the National institutes of Health (NIAID Consortia for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development UM1-AI144371, P01 AI158571, Ma…

I've always been confused about the arbitrary lengths of patents. Surely for something like this, six months or a year is fine? Enough time to get to market and make a considerable size of buck, but brief enough that a much needed thing that is subsidised by public money can be used as widely as possible. (Remember, philanthropic funds are often treated favourably for tax, so are, in a way, also public-ish money) On…

Actually patents themselves don't have arbitrary length. They are 20 years and then done[1]. That said, there are patents on refinements or add-ons that come later, and so sometimes the patent expires but it has been replaced by a new way that is even better.

There is a scheme in the pharmacy market for shifting patents to prevent generics from being produced, that scheme would be outlawed if we had the right mix of legislators in Congress (basically fewer people who are dependent on these pharmaceutical companies for campaign funds and PAC support). But the original patents do expire, the trick is convince folks that they don't do what they do as well as the new thing does what it does.See here[2] if you want the boring details.

[1] I've got a bit over a dozen patents that arose out of work I've done for others and ended up becoming very familiar with them, even get the occasional expert witness work when trolls need to be disabused.

[2] https://www.upcounsel.com/patents-in-pharmaceuticals

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#76

Post by codefreeordie »

Teever wrote: post #5
codefreeordie wrote: post #2

Hopefully this proves to be effective -- and hopefully it doesn't merely encourage this particular binding site to mutate more rapidly.

I was under the impression that we can mutate it into a corner because there are only so many shapes it can mutate into before it doesn't work and the virus can't get into cells.

It is possible that we might be able to back it into an evolutionary corner, but we don't really know enough to know which "directions" lead to dead-ends and which ones lead closer to a leap into a novel and more virulent pathogen.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#77

Post by legutierr »

zaptrem wrote: post #45
ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

From the article: The researchers have applied for patents on both the antibodies and the mouse model used to produce them. They hope to see their work developed commercially. ... followed by This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-021989), the National institutes of Health (NIAID Consortia for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development UM1-AI144371, P01 AI158571, Ma…

Alternatively, why don't researchers just take investment in place of grants?

If their research is of something that is attractive to investors, no doubt they will. Grants are often used to fund research that does not attract investment for whatever reason.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#78

Post by nyokodo »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

From the article: The researchers have applied for patents on both the antibodies and the mouse model used to produce them. They hope to see their work developed commercially. ... followed by This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-021989), the National institutes of Health (NIAID Consortia for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development UM1-AI144371, P01 AI158571, Ma…

> a lifetime perpetual non-exclusive right to use and re-license said patent on what ever terms they deem acceptable.

Probably the biggest immediate positive impact would be automatically securing the rights to produce and distribute the patented good in developing nations. BigCo isn’t making much money there anyway.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#79

Post by retcore »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #75
hkt wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been confused about the arbitrary lengths of patents. Surely for something like this, six months or a year is fine? Enough time to get to market and make a considerable size of buck, but brief enough that a much needed thing that is subsidised by public money can be used as widely as possible. (Remember, philanthropic funds are often treated favourably for tax, so are, in a way, also public-ish money) On…

Actually patents themselves don't have arbitrary length. They are 20 years and then done[1]. That said, there are patents on refinements or add-ons that come later, and so sometimes the patent expires but it has been replaced by a new way that is even better. There is a scheme in the pharmacy market for shifting patents to prevent generics from being produced, that scheme would be outlawed if we had the right mix of…

The problem starts with the time between patent award and regulatory approval limiting the commercial exclusivity. This has driven big pharma to patent manufacturing processes instead of the compounds. If I understand it correctly from memory the Ritalin availability crisis was a example of process patent reengineering.

Edit: was not is.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#80

Post by bryanrasmussen »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #69
feet wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to understand the system you're criticizing a bit better before moving ahead and criticizing it

Perhaps. If you feel you have an understanding of the system I'm criticizing, why not help me understand why it has to be this way? I get it if you don't have the time or inclination to do so, but surprisingly I'm actually really open to learning new things and it would be appreciated not only by me but by other people reading your comments if you could explain the current system, perhaps other systems that have been…

well I don't really understand the system either, but there were multiple organizations making grants, so if you granted rights to all of them what rights would be left for you - that seems problematic. Also I suppose it was an expensive thing to do so they needed to get grants from multiple places, it seems like any recommendation to change this would be liable to have all sorts of side effects and, in the short term at least (5-10 years) likely to make the system function worse than it is now.

Perhaps there is some negotiation already going on for grant moneys, I would expect so if any grants were sizable, I mean if I am giving you a million dollars to study something I might say before hand these are my requirements and you would probably say yes or no, but maybe some grants were much less in size and involved things like use of facilities. In those cases it would be much more likely to change your value estimation of the grant and maybe refuse because not worth it, but if not worth it less stuff gets made and at some point we are the things working worse than before because some researchers would be like screw this academic career I can just go be a quant somewhere.

I mean as I understand it being a scientist is not exactly really rewarding https://www.zippia.com/scientist-jobs/salary/ so I would probably not want to do anything that made it potentially less (financially) rewarding because while people also do things for the good of humanity and so forth at some point when you're eating your Top Ramen with your disgusting room-mates maybe you might be tempted to change your life course for something with increased comfort.

Post reply on HN