Inverse relationship between rhinovirus & SARS-CoV-2 still holding strong. Seems clear some form of viral interference is happening here. But is the causation all one way (SARS2-->RV) or does it go both ways? As someone likely suffering an RV infection right now, I'm curious 1/10
There is some evidence that rhinovirus infection protects against Covid by activating interferon-stimulated genes (ISG). ISG are activated upon SARS-CoV-2 infection as well, but with a delay that allows the virus to replicate & establish infection. 2/10 rupress.org/jem/article-st…
Here's another 2021 study showing experimental evidence that RV impedes Covid. Remarkably, SARS-CoV-2 was inhibited even when rhinovirus was introduced 24 hours after inoculation. 3/10 academic.oup.com/jid/article/22…
By blocking the interferon response stimulated by RV infection, the experimenters proved that it was through the stimulating the innate interferon response that RV interferes with SARS-CoV-2. 4/10
At least one eminent virologist and rhinovirus specialist maintains the viral interference between SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus works both ways, as one would expect, even if the interferon response to Covid is somewhat weaker than that evoked by RVs. 5/10
It seems to be generally accepted that a large rhinovirus wave that accompanied the start of the school year in some European countries in 2009 delayed the onset of the H1N1 pandemic flu ("swine flu") waves there. 6/10
More recent research seems to confirm what was suspected at the time: rhinovirus infection provides protection against influenza A. 7/10
BTW, I'm not trying to make a point here, certainly not that we should seek out RV infection to prevent flu or Covid—RV is making me quite miserable right now. I want to avoid future RV infection as much as possible. I just find this all fascinating. 8/10
Viral interference happens with other viruses as well, and the original Omicron wave drove down the prevalence of almost all other respiratory viruses with one very strange exception: the seasonal coronaviruses. I still don't understand that one. 9/10
Usual caveat: I'm not an expert in these matters and have likely left out important considerations or said something stupid. Corrections & additional information from genuine experts (& others) welcome. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've tried to make sense of BA.3.2's penchant for kids by considering its unique spike: more compact, more closed, & more antibody-evasive than any other variant.
But I think another feature of BA.3.2 is responsible: its wholesale deletion of ORF7a, ORF7b, & ORF8 (∆ORF78).
2/
∆ORF78 is rare but not unheard of; it was in several late XBB variants (GW.5.1.1, FW.1.1, GE.1.2, etc) & a few branches of other variants. I've long thought these late XBB had an advantage in some population subsector, but I didn't suspect kids. 3/
I suspect that the number of people continuously infected since 2020 or 2021 is much larger than we realize. It's impossible to prove, but there are case studies where a chronically infected person gets infected by a new variant, which drives out the original virus...
2/16
...which consequently leaves no trace that the person was chronically infected before the super-infecting variant—took over.
Why then are some Cryptic WW variants resistant to being outcompeted by newer variants?
3/16
While the final outcome for BA.3.2 is uncertain, its unique characteristics—extensively remodeled spike NTD & SD1/SD2, novel S2 muts, & total deletion of ORF7a/7b/8—make it the best candidate for co-dominance we've seen, which could mark a new era in SARS-2 evolution. 1/
Very proud to be a co-author on this comprehensive preprint on the novel, growing saltation lineage BA.3.2, together with @Tuliodna, Darren Martin, Dikeledi Kekana, and lead author @graemedor. 1/9
I would normally write a summary 🧵 of the BA.3.2 mutational analysis here, but as much of my contribution parallels my previous BA.3.2 threads I'll just link to those here, w/brief descriptions of each.
BA.3.2 emerged in Nov 2024 after ~3 years of intrahost evolution with >50 new spike AA muts, but since then, it's changed very little. Could the drug molnupiravir (MOV) galvanize BA.3.2 into pursuing new evolutionary paths? A new 89-mut MOV BA.3.2 seq suggests it could. 1/11
Background on MOV: It's a mutagenic drug. Its purpose is to cause so many mutations that the virus becomes unviable & is cleared. But we've long known this often does not happen. Instead, the virus persists in highly mutated form & can be transmitted. 2/
I was an author on a paper published in @Nature that conclusively showed not only that MOV has created highly mutated, persistent viruses, but that these viruses have transmitted numerous times. See 🧵 below by lead author @theosanderson. 3/
The most valuable viral research tools—@nextstrain & CovSpectrum—are being destroyed, not only blocked from new data but now forbidden from even sharing info from the PAST. Why?
Because GISAID is run dictatorially by a con man, paranoid egomaniac, & liar named Peter Bogner. 1/
I use CovSpectrum & Nextstrain every day—& I'm not the only one. Every Covid thread I've ever posted here has relied partly on CovSpectrum & Nextstrain for information & visuals. These vital tools have now been stolen from us by a world-class grifter. 2/ thinkglobalhealth.org/article/to-fin…
For years scientists knew something was very, very wrong with GISAID, but the breakout story (from which much of this 🧵is based) came 2 years ago in @ScienceMagazine from @sciencecohen & Martin Enserik. 3/ science.org/content/articl…