We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Bit strange really . I want news tomorrow morning and I don’t . Fancy a top up first .
its not just in the sun
And you really believe something that has been posted in the Sun?
I believe it was noted that the mutations are more in the payload of the virus and not it's 'breaching mechanism' which is what we look for. However I may have picked that up from other sources.
Trek, it depends on where the mutations are in the virus. We’ll soon know as I’m sure they are sequencing it, but as we don’t know the exact position where our lead Affimers are binding to the spike then it will just have to be tested. But as we have a lot of Affimers it will just be a matter of testing the others which will be really quick. Definitely the speed of reagent generation is the main attraction of our tech.
Thinking loud, anyone know if one test strip can pick up either or strains of a mutated virus. My guess is yes as you could have two different affimers on a test strip, but then why not just have two different strips. We’ll costs, convenience etc. The ability to knock up an affimer in 4 weeks for another strain of the virus is also a USP for this technology. If the Sun is correct it could unfortunately be needed...
“A CORONAVIRUS expert fears a mystery new outbreak hitting China is a mutant strain of the deadly bug that leaves sufferers sick for even longer.
Worryingly, the strain is behaving differently in patients in northeast China where five million people across two cities are virtually sealed off following spiralling new infections........”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11675374/new-coronavirus-outbreak-china-mutant-strain/
Trek
This is a good article that points out the positives and negatives of LFD at a fairly basic level.
The market will decrease with time I hope, otherwise we’ll never get back to normal. But the current market is huge, as people have pointed out on here previously - every flight, every dentist, every large company will test employees, the list goes on and on. There’s plenty of room for numerous good tests, however I think there’s only a few (?) that are actual point of care. One of the tests listed in this article needs a piece of equipment to read the result making our test more attractive.
With regard to sensitivity, most Affimers are nanomolar but affinity can be increased through avidity. Our company has shown low picamolar affinity by linking Affimers together, and individual Affimers can hit this level too as shown in some published info. This and ability to detect individual spikes independently of virus will push the LOD to useful levels - potentially may need some tweaking but we’ll get there.
Also affirmers are smaller. I think this means you can pack more of them in a given area exposing more bimding sites. Part of the technical development will be getting these to efficiently align.
https://www.the-scientist.com/lab-tools/using-mimics-to-get-around-antibodies-limitations-64264
One thing to bear in mind is that the majority of our competitors rapid antigen tests rely on antibodies to bind to the viral particles. One of the major advantages of Affimers is that they are cheaply and quickly produced and if the virus does mutate, new Affirmers specific to the new spike proteins can also be developed quickly. This is in startk contrast to the time and expense involved in finding and producing large quantities of antibodies
I just posted it here without thinking too hard about it. Science is pretty good journal. Alternative was not to post it.
Chinese seem to be publishing a fair bit and there is some interesting stuff preprint. Review on saliva tests was one if them.
I thought it was a good article btw, not too fussed if we got a mention or not for me. Avacta’s test will hopefully speak for itself at some point if it addresses the points made, be great if we can get the hat trick of cheap, accurate and fast
I agree, huge initial demand then it’ll subside with some obvious core testing areas that will continue. That sounds like a negative... But, and it’s a big un, it’ll put Avacta centre stage and they’ll have the revenues to fund their other valuable efforts.
Jim. I think I stick with my original thoughts. I'm disappointed it doesn't mention Avacta - that is because I'm invested here and not there.
I've posted today on limits of detection - my conclusion was that we are not at the LoD of PCR but we do have practical benefits. Whilst we may not find everyone with low viral loads there is a correlation with the more infectious higher loads.
I believe saliva is more practical than nasal and thus article suggests more reliable.
I do believe as prevalence reduces the number of tests will also decline. I know you think differently. I can see airlines conducting testing and front line staff such as care homes. I don't see the entire population of the UK being tested weekly especially as the virus becomes more geographically isolated. The use of track and trace will also reduce testing requirement - look at countries such as NZ.
More competitors than I realised. Doesnt mention Avacta.
A different articke mentions affimer binding at nanomolar sensitivity so about to Google virus concentrations in saliva. Reiterate that PCR is current gold standard but is not easy to scale up - requires labs and humans. On the whole is background but the market place will be competitive - seems others may get there before us with poorer test.
Biggest takeaway but might be confirmation bias is the States would focus testing 900k per day - lower than predictions on here. Oh and other tests will cost $1.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/coronavirus-antigen-tests-quick-and-cheap-too-often-wrong