Spike mutation pipeline reveals a more transmissible form of SARS-CoV-2: study

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v2

by sunraa • 6 years ago

49 10 6 years ago

jostmey• 6 years ago

RNA viruses like this coronavirus mutate an alarming rates. I would be shocked if these mutations have not already occurred in people. There must be a reason why these mutations were not selected. They must be detrimental in other ways

nostromo• 6 years ago

There are many reports that SARSCoV2 actually mutates quite slowly.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-mutation-rate.html

coliveira• 6 years ago

It might be the case that the current virus is already very good at its job, new mutations are now able to compete.

pdxandi• 6 years ago

Yeah, my understanding is that SARS-CoV-2 has a proofreader enzyme that error corrects, which ensures fidelity during replication. In other words, it mutates a lot slower than say the flu.

citrusx• 6 years ago

https://gizmodo.com/what-to-know-about-that-new-paper-claimi...

chrisamiller2• 6 years ago

This thread from another virologist casts some doubt about the claims of selective advantage proposed in this preprint: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1257825352660877313?s=19

Science in action, folks. It's sometimes messy, but usually converges on the truth

joshgel• 6 years ago

Any good takes on the benefit/harm ratio of these pre print servers?

Yes, it’s good to get info out quickly, especially in a pandemic. Yes, it’s very important that this kind of science is not stuck behind paywalls. But I really worry about the quality of data being published there and the ability of interested but non-technical readers to understand it in the appropriate context. Many news reports about this article didn’t reference this Twitter thread. But likely if it were published in a major journal after review and with an accompanying editorial, the context might have gotten through better.

jrockway• 6 years ago

I think that's always up for debate. I notice the cultural differences even in the technology field. On HN, I feel like people generally publish their work openly in early stages; make a Github, upload code, tell people about it when they think it's good enough. Over on Reddit, people do the opposite. People will write about something they're doing, but then when asked "can we see the code?" or "is the STL available on Thingiverse?" they hem and haw about it not being good enough and as a result nobody can ever build on the work. (I have never ever seen someone that said on Reddit that they'll publish it later publish it later. The fun is over for them, and they're on to the next thing. So a lot of interesting ideas / code / 3d models are completely lost to history and just have to be reinvented.)

I don't think you'll ever make someone who sees the world one way see it the other way. All you can do is decide for yourself what to do, and do that. Some people will follow you. Those set in their ways will continue to do it their way.

chrisamiller2• 6 years ago

Preprint servers have been an amazing boost to the speed at which science is able to progress. The benefits unambiguously outweigh the small number of cons, in nearly everyone's opinion.

The fact that the press can't help sensationalizing things and can't be half-assed to understand that this is not peer-reviewed doesn't change it's utility. I mean ffs, there is a giant banner at the top of the page that says:

"bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information."

Ignoring that is just shitty journalism.

Spike mutation pipeline reveals a more transmissible form of SARS-CoV-2: study

Related Stories