2)pseudouridine and N1-methyl should be better spelled out. Xia et al conflates the two and we will spell this out more.
PseudoU wobbles more the methylpseudoU but both significantly alter Tm and thus are ‘stickier’ bases than disrupt translation.
Parr et al.
Demonstrate 9C changes in Tm of a primer if you swap out just 4 Uridines with either base.
More data has emerged on SEB and its similarity to other venom toxins. The paper was already written to disclaimer SEB as being a superantigenic peptide that was a subset of the whole SEB toxin but Cheng et al raise an antibody to this and demonstrate its relevance.
Perhaps the most damaging data to support our vax QC concerns comes out of the EMA.
Regulatory officials highlighted their post Translational smears demanding an action item to resolve them.
Very thorough.
Not only applied a live-dead like PCR looking at sgRNA, they also cultured the virus and looked for immune histochemistry confirmation of proteins.
Great chat with @jjcouey
I have some errors to confess to as I spoke to fast.
1)I was enrolled in a PhD program at UW but dropped out to focus on my job when the HGP starting racing with Craig Venter. So No PhD.
3)The vaccines have N1-Methyl Pseudouridine and I shouldn't shorthand this to Pseudouridine as the former has less wobble than the latter. N1-Methyl does alter the Tm and increase base stacking in RNA but its methyl group steals one potential H-bond.
Let’s have a look at the methods section of the paper.
2 rounds of 45 cycles of PCR?
This is what you do if you want to make polymerase slippage errors near GC rich triplet repeats.
People this library illiterate shouldn’t have the keys to $20K NovaSeq runs.
Having engineered very accurate sequencers, to address PCR polymerase error, you must utilize DNA barcodes that get attached to your PCR products in the first cycle of PCR. Any barcode that over amplifies through the PCR process is discounted.