I understood one of the reasons for selecting the spike was that it was deemed integral to the virus and that any significant mutation there would result in a less serious pathogen.
I understood one of the reasons for selecting the spike was that it was deemed integral to the virus and that any significant mutation there would result in a less serious pathogen.
Sorry, I cant recall where I read it but might have been one of the pharma documents. The suggestion was that any significant change in the spike would not be conducive to the fitness of the virus and therefore we should not be concerned about the choice of target. Not saying I agree with it, just recall that was part of the rationalisation when it was challenged.
I understood one of the reasons for selecting the spike was that it was deemed integral to the virus and that any significant mutation there would result in a less serious pathogen.
not sure i follow you.
why would spike be "more integral" than, say nucleocapsid?
Sorry, I cant recall where I read it but might have been one of the pharma documents. The suggestion was that any significant change in the spike would not be conducive to the fitness of the virus and therefore we should not be concerned about the choice of target. Not saying I agree with it, just recall that was part of the rationalisation when it was challenged.
that seems an awfully tenuous idea given the way coronaviruses mutate and risks around antigenic fixation.
should you happen to come upon the source, i'd appreciate it if you could post.