Discussing with @edwardcholmes, @arambaut, and BGarry, is it possible that B.1.1.7 and E484K_K417T/N lineages are all 'successful', but for different reasons?
The latter being inherently more transmissible, with the others due to _some_ level of immune escape?
The latter being inherently more transmissible, with the others due to _some_ level of immune escape?
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1348801598063972352
We know the B.1.1.7 lineage is inherently more transmissible, but we don't have the same strong data for the E484K_K417T/N lineages - just that they appear to be expanding (rapidly) in the areas they're found.
We DON'T have any direct evidence that the E484K_K417T/N lineages _do_ indeed escape immunity though - it's purely a hypothesis, but I think worth testing.
Also, even if they _do_ escape _some_ immunity, it's unlikely to be complete - but even small effect = advantageous.
Also, even if they _do_ escape _some_ immunity, it's unlikely to be complete - but even small effect = advantageous.
And since this always comes up - we (I) don't know if/how this might affect vaccine efficacy, but unlikely to render them non-functional.
But to @pfizer @moderna_tx, let's get the spikes from these SARS-CoV-2 lineages cloned and into animals so we can get early data.
But to @pfizer @moderna_tx, let's get the spikes from these SARS-CoV-2 lineages cloned and into animals so we can get early data.
*Latter = obviously I meant former (B.1.1.7) here!
Adding this recent preprint from CMMID where they consider these hypotheses for the 501Y.V2 lineage in South Africa (a E484K_K417N lineage).
cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19…
cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
