Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had an interesting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
Maybe one small step in sending the flu virus the way of the smallpox virus.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :
sting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
us.
Wow, pretty amazing work. I'm not sorry I got out of the field, but it wou ld be pretty cool to work on things this important. I dated a gal in colle ge who ended up at NIH. I haven't kept in touch with her over the years. Maybe I'll try to look her up, see how her career has gone.
Rick C.
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 10:08:09 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :
sting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
us.
They didn't do anything beyond this cumbersome imaging. The results section just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is full of a b unch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The article's va lue is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and that's the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actually know what t hey're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
te:
resting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
irus.
on just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is full of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The article's value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and that's th e extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actually know what they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
The fact that it got published in PNAS does suggest that it was seen as bre akthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you are.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 7:23:23 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrot e:
rote:
teresting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
fvirus.
tion just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is full of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The article' s value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and that's the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actually know wh at they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
reakthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you are.
I think you missed the point of the article. It's value is the description of this quantum dot probe, and not so much anything they learned about the replication cycle of the influenza virus. The most important requirement fo r any kind of relatively invasive probing like this, that has been ongoing for at least 15 years that I can see, is that it be "unperturbative." And t hat is what the majority of the paper is discussing: the various measures a nd sub-experiments to lend confidence in their QD probe as interacting with cell chemistry in exactly the same way as unprobed virus particle and RNA. Without this, you would just end up studying a modified IAV with QD rna-pr otein complex, instead of the wild type IAV. You might note that almost all of this confirmation hinges on what is already known about both the IAV an d the intracell replication process. And like they state in the intro, they 're looking to develop an anti-viral, like Tamiflu, not a vaccine, somethin g that puts a kink in the replication process somewhere.
ote:
interesting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
ox virus.
ection just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is full of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The articl e's value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and that' s the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actually know what they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
breakthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you are.
Or perhaps you did.
anything they learned about the replication cycle of the influenza virus.
Does this make any less useful?
g like this, that has been ongoing for at least 15 years that I can see, is that it be "unperturbative." And that is what the majority of the paper is discussing: the various measures and sub-experiments to lend confidence in their QD probe as interacting with cell chemistry in exactly the same way as unprobed virus particle and RNA. Without this, you would just end up stu dying a modified IAV with QD rna-protein complex, instead of the wild type IAV. You might note that almost all of this confirmation hinges on what is already known about both the IAV and the intracell replication process.
Thbgat's how science works.
l, like Tamiflu, not a vaccine, something that puts a kink in the replicati on process somewhere.
As if a vaccine doesn't put a kink in the replication process - if the viru s particles get cleaned up by the immune system before they can replicate, that definitely puts a kink in the replication process.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 8:28:37 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :
n interesting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
l.pdf
lpox virus.
section just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is ful l of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The arti cle's value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and tha t's the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actually kno w what they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
as breakthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you are.
Your choice of title says otherwise.
h anything they learned about the replication cycle of the influenza virus.
The people who work in this field of research obviously think it's useful. My guess is there's a big pharmaceutical out there with top-notch researche rs who surpassed this point of probe development years ago. The work is pro prietary and closely guarded, so no one knows about it. Money tends to be a much more effective motivator.
ing like this, that has been ongoing for at least 15 years that I can see, is that it be "unperturbative." And that is what the majority of the paper is discussing: the various measures and sub-experiments to lend confidence in their QD probe as interacting with cell chemistry in exactly the same wa y as unprobed virus particle and RNA. Without this, you would just end up s tudying a modified IAV with QD rna-protein complex, instead of the wild typ e IAV. You might note that almost all of this confirmation hinges on what i s already known about both the IAV and the intracell replication process.
ral, like Tamiflu, not a vaccine, something that puts a kink in the replica tion process somewhere.
rus particles get cleaned up by the immune system before they can replicate , that definitely puts a kink in the replication process.
It's not really viewed that way by immunologists. Vaccines usually elicit a n immune system response in the way of antibodies or T-lymphocytes, entitie s that occur naturally. Anti-virals don't do that. They introduce chemistry into the system that usually inhibits cellular catalytic enzymes required for some part of the replication process, and are unnatural for the most pa rt.
These people are developing a drug, not a vaccine.
te:
an interesting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
ull.pdf
allpox virus.
ts section just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is f ull of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The ar ticle's value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and t hat's the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actually k now what they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
n as breakthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you are.
How? My title was blandly descriptive.
uch anything they learned about the replication cycle of the influenza viru s.
. My guess is there's a big pharmaceutical out there with top-notch researc hers who surpassed this point of probe development years ago. The work is p roprietary and closely guarded, so no one knows about it. Money tends to be a much more effective motivator.
Money also tends to be tightly aimed at short term financial benefit. Seren dipity doesn't get a look-in.
obing like this, that has been ongoing for at least 15 years that I can see , is that it be "unperturbative." And that is what the majority of the pape r is discussing: the various measures and sub-experiments to lend confidenc e in their QD probe as interacting with cell chemistry in exactly the same way as unprobed virus particle and RNA. Without this, you would just end up studying a modified IAV with QD rna-protein complex, instead of the wild t ype IAV. You might note that almost all of this confirmation hinges on what is already known about both the IAV and the intracell replication process.
viral, like Tamiflu, not a vaccine, something that puts a kink in the repli cation process somewhere.
virus particles get cleaned up by the immune system before they can replica te, that definitely puts a kink in the replication process.
an immune system response in the way of antibodies or T-lymphocytes, entit ies that occur naturally. Anti-virals don't do that. They introduce chemist ry into the system that usually inhibits cellular catalytic enzymes require d for some part of the replication process, and are unnatural for the most part.
As if vaccines aren't unnatural.
It was back in 1828 that Woehler demonstrated that "unnatural" isn't a mean ingful label to apply to a chemical compound. If you did a total synthesise of an influenza virus it would give you exactly the same case of flu as it 's evolved twin.
No, they developed - and published - a system for making small chunks of vi ral material visible as it moved through the cell, from the cell wall to th e nucleus.
There's a reference to what Tamiflu does in the paper, but that doesn't giv e any kind of pointer to their long-term program (if one exists).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 11:45:40 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrot e:
rote:
ad an interesting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
.full.pdf
smallpox virus.
ults section just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is full of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The article's value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and that's the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actually know what they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
een as breakthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you are.
much anything they learned about the replication cycle of the influenza vi rus.
ul. My guess is there's a big pharmaceutical out there with top-notch resea rchers who surpassed this point of probe development years ago. The work is proprietary and closely guarded, so no one knows about it. Money tends to be a much more effective motivator.
endipity doesn't get a look-in.
probing like this, that has been ongoing for at least 15 years that I can s ee, is that it be "unperturbative." And that is what the majority of the pa per is discussing: the various measures and sub-experiments to lend confide nce in their QD probe as interacting with cell chemistry in exactly the sam e way as unprobed virus particle and RNA. Without this, you would just end up studying a modified IAV with QD rna-protein complex, instead of the wild type IAV. You might note that almost all of this confirmation hinges on wh at is already known about both the IAV and the intracell replication proces s.
i-viral, like Tamiflu, not a vaccine, something that puts a kink in the rep lication process somewhere.
e virus particles get cleaned up by the immune system before they can repli cate, that definitely puts a kink in the replication process.
it an immune system response in the way of antibodies or T-lymphocytes, ent ities that occur naturally. Anti-virals don't do that. They introduce chemi stry into the system that usually inhibits cellular catalytic enzymes requi red for some part of the replication process, and are unnatural for the mos t part.
The history of vaccines goes back pretty far, at least 429 BC. Jenner took his cue from a practice widespread in Turkey at the time, and purportedly v ery effective. It's pretty natural:
aningful label to apply to a chemical compound. If you did a total synthesi se of an influenza virus it would give you exactly the same case of flu as it's evolved twin.
viral material visible as it moved through the cell, from the cell wall to the nucleus.
Something is fishy about their description there. It doesn't sound right. I think they skipped some stuff.
Somewhere in the intro they mention anti-viral development. They're only in terested in the detailed study of replication process insofar as it present s targets for anti-viral intervention. The probe is just a single step.
ive any kind of pointer to their long-term program (if one exists).
ote:
had an interesting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
16.full.pdfe smallpox virus.
esults section just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the article is full of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. Th e article's value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, a nd that's the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actual ly know what they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
seen as breakthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you are .
so much anything they learned about the replication cycle of the influenza virus.
eful. My guess is there's a big pharmaceutical out there with top-notch res earchers who surpassed this point of probe development years ago. The work is proprietary and closely guarded, so no one knows about it. Money tends t o be a much more effective motivator.
erendipity doesn't get a look-in.
e probing like this, that has been ongoing for at least 15 years that I can see, is that it be "unperturbative." And that is what the majority of the paper is discussing: the various measures and sub-experiments to lend confi dence in their QD probe as interacting with cell chemistry in exactly the s ame way as unprobed virus particle and RNA. Without this, you would just en d up studying a modified IAV with QD rna-protein complex, instead of the wi ld type IAV. You might note that almost all of this confirmation hinges on what is already known about both the IAV and the intracell replication proc ess.
nti-viral, like Tamiflu, not a vaccine, something that puts a kink in the r eplication process somewhere.
the virus particles get cleaned up by the immune system before they can rep licate, that definitely puts a kink in the replication process.
icit an immune system response in the way of antibodies or T-lymphocytes, e ntities that occur naturally. Anti-virals don't do that. They introduce che mistry into the system that usually inhibits cellular catalytic enzymes req uired for some part of the replication process, and are unnatural for the m ost part.
k his cue from a practice widespread in Turkey at the time, and purportedly very effective. It's pretty natural:
It was developed, rather than evolved, which makes it an artifice.
meaningful label to apply to a chemical compound. If you did a total synthe sise of an influenza virus it would give you exactly the same case of flu a s it's evolved twin.
f viral material visible as it moved through the cell, from the cell wall t o the nucleus.
I think they skipped some stuff.
interested in the detailed study of replication process insofar as it prese nts targets for anti-viral intervention. The probe is just a single step.
They don't. Their introduction doesn't say anything about why they might ha ve developed the technique. Their "significance statement" includes the lin e "These findings reveal uncoating and vRNP trafficking mechanisms which ma y assist in developing new strategies to block IAV infection."
This isn't a statement of their interest - more a vapid generalisation abou t what anybody might do with the tools they've developed. Editors ask for t his kind of nonsense, and authors deliver it.
give any kind of pointer to their long-term program (if one exists).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ce had an interesting - Chinese - paper (but in English).
2116.full.pdfthe smallpox virus.
results section just rehashes stuff everybody already knew. And the articl e is full of a bunch of "may"'s, which means they learned nothing from it. The article's value is in their development of this Qdot imaging technique, and that's the extent of it. Maybe someday someone can use if it they actu ally know what they're looking for. This isn't any kind of breakthrough.
as seen as breakthrough by people who are closer to the coalface than you a re.
t so much anything they learned about the replication cycle of the influenz a virus.
useful. My guess is there's a big pharmaceutical out there with top-notch r esearchers who surpassed this point of probe development years ago. The wor k is proprietary and closely guarded, so no one knows about it. Money tends to be a much more effective motivator.
Serendipity doesn't get a look-in.
ive probing like this, that has been ongoing for at least 15 years that I c an see, is that it be "unperturbative." And that is what the majority of th e paper is discussing: the various measures and sub-experiments to lend con fidence in their QD probe as interacting with cell chemistry in exactly the same way as unprobed virus particle and RNA. Without this, you would just end up studying a modified IAV with QD rna-protein complex, instead of the wild type IAV. You might note that almost all of this confirmation hinges o n what is already known about both the IAV and the intracell replication pr ocess.
anti-viral, like Tamiflu, not a vaccine, something that puts a kink in the replication process somewhere.
f the virus particles get cleaned up by the immune system before they can r eplicate, that definitely puts a kink in the replication process.
elicit an immune system response in the way of antibodies or T-lymphocytes, entities that occur naturally. Anti-virals don't do that. They introduce c hemistry into the system that usually inhibits cellular catalytic enzymes r equired for some part of the replication process, and are unnatural for the most part.
ook his cue from a practice widespread in Turkey at the time, and purported ly very effective. It's pretty natural:
a meaningful label to apply to a chemical compound. If you did a total synt hesise of an influenza virus it would give you exactly the same case of flu as it's evolved twin.
of viral material visible as it moved through the cell, from the cell wall to the nucleus.
t. I think they skipped some stuff.
y interested in the detailed study of replication process insofar as it pre sents targets for anti-viral intervention. The probe is just a single step.
have developed the technique. Their "significance statement" includes the l ine "These findings reveal uncoating and vRNP trafficking mechanisms which may assist in developing new strategies to block IAV infection."
out what anybody might do with the tools they've developed. Editors ask for this kind of nonsense, and authors deliver it.
They say this:
"During virus infection, uncoating is an obligatory step to release the vir al genome into the host cell, and this step is an attractive antiviral target."
First sentence of paper after abstract.
And since they're fixated on this "uncoating" throughout, they're implying they're going after that part of the replication.
't give any kind of pointer to their long-term program (if one exists).
The probe fails when it gets to the nucleus. The viral RNA is transcripted to DNA for integration into the host cell genes, where the real action star ts. The probe RNA is detritus after the transcription process, so not of mu ch more use.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.