Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
It sounds like it could be a 4 pronged attack with antibodies against S and N and likewise T Cells.
Plus again we have the hypothesis that the T Cells will be more effective against variants than antibodies.
It looks like the weakest of the 4 prongs is the antibody attack to the RBD of the S protein when going against a VOC, but that is to be expected.
Remember yesterday's article
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00367-7
Scancell's findings are in line with that article as far as T Cells are concerned.
No mention of the delivery system though, but maybe that is because this is a pre-clinical article and we were told by Lindy (Sky presentation) that the mouse experiments used gold nanoparticles rather than the new delivery system. The article actually states:
"Mice were immunised with 1 µg plasmid DNA, coated onto gold particles, intradermally using
a HeliosTM gene gun (BioRad, Hemel Hempstead, UK) on days 1, 8 and 15 and responses
analysed on day 21, unless stated otherwise. "
LL,
Most likely day for an RNS - Tuesday (26%)
Least likely days - Monday (17%), Friday (18%)
(Wednesday 20%, Thursday 19%)
RR, I thought Thursdays were the day most Scancell RNSs appeared, which is why I said I thought it would be one of the last two Thursdays of June...
As you say, though, any day is a good day for the right RNS.
Miavoce,
Any days a good day for the right RNS.
Tuesdays are statistically the most likely.
Hi crumbs
Maybe the efforts to test the SN15 construct against the Kent and South Africa variants then rolled into the Brazil and Indian variants producing the SN17.
We know LD will want it as effective as possible in a real world environment.
Let's hope there is no further reasons to delay the start of the Trial.
Chester.
Thank Ivy
The important thing for me is this science of covidity has and is being waved under some very capable noses that have the ability to take the product all the way ... CEPI we can be sure are aware and maybe very close and BioNTech we know ....no doubts there are others too...but something needs to give this program needs to rapidly become a clinical realty the need is still very real .....it's got to get interesting soon ....trial in weeks turned out to be pie in the SKY but the science has not slept and the product is here to be utilised...
Hi C7.
The review period will be different for weekly as opposed to monthly publications plus the critical time frame is date of submission for review and then the date of publication not necessarily the specific time taken to review the article.
But am with Miavoce they won’t hang around for the publication it is the p1 trial that needs to start
Tuesday 6th July would be one month since Vulpes last buy.
If there is such a 30 day rule on insider trading then we are two weeks away from news.
Amazed that we keep on having to rely on these 'found' pieces of the puzzle but also appreciate all the efforts put into this board.
Chester.
There is no way that SCLP are going to hang around waiting for peer review / formal publication - the urgency is far too great and none of the other vaccine developers took that approach. I would hope that now that this paper is in the public domain we will get news on trial etc. very quickly. Did somebody say that Tuesday's are are a good day for RNS's ?
Depends on publication and the more prestigious the journal the longer it can take but you are normally talking months. I am only basing my comments on specific articles SCLP in the past that have been RNSd.
They could of course just give a general update and mention this study or CH could just give a presentation/ interview and mention it alongside a general update.
My feeling would be these results would be good enough for SCLP want to push it into the clinic ASAP and they would have known these results for a while so I think the next news is likely to be SN15/17 to start human trials very soon.
My response re the peer review was to try and explain why SCLP may not RNS today’s publication rather than say it is not newsworthy.
I just feel it is the final proof that all is well with Covidity but the real news is the trial starting.
My only hope is that they start the trial and by all means look to test vs the Delta variant on an ongoing basis as a possible booster but not to halt going into the trials until they find the “ perfect Vaccine”.
JOURNALS ASK REVIEWERS TO TAKE NO MORE THAN 3/4 WEEKS TO REVIEW
Ivy, how long on average does it take to peer review?
Miavoce
I don’t think they will test against the other 2 variants such as Delta specifically as you would be forever testing etc.The beauty of today is they have data vs Alpha and Beta so they can establish a correlation between T cells vs ABs and variants and validate their approach for future variants including Delta via extrapolation.
Not really C7 as the assay just needs to be established so you can test the Vax against the variant.
The results could be classed as RNS able if SCLP chose to release them but until the publication is peer reviewed they may hold back
Would not an assay like that be classed as price sensitive
MiaV, agree with that.
ATB, LL
I guess that they will have been testing SN17 (or other SN's) against the Delta (Indian) variant over the last few weeks as there would be little point in manufacturing a vaccine for trial that hadn't been shown to be effective against that. Hopefully the submission of today's paper to the pre-print service indicates that they have found Covidity to be equally effective against delta otherwise why submit the pre-print only to later have to say 'oops, it doesn't work against delta'.
South African B 1.351
In contrast to the antibody responses, the T cell responses did not seem to be impacted by
variations between the virus strains (Figure 6F). Splenocytes from mice immunised with
either the original Lineage A vaccine or the B.1.351 (Beta) vaccine were stimulated ex vivo
with RBD and N peptide pools derived from the original sequence. T cell responses specific
for RBD and N were detected with little difference between the response induced by the
different vaccine constructs. These results suggest that mutations in the B.1.351 (Beta)
variant have less impact on the T cell responses.
One of the most concerning variants of concern (VoC) currently in circulation is B.1.351
(Beta). Recent data have suggested that although the approved vaccines induce responses
that can provide some cross-reactivity with the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant, they are less effective
against the B.1.351 (Beta) and P.1 (Gamma) variants [37-39]. To address this, we
engineered a new construct encoding the RBD protein containing the mutations within the
B.1.351 (Beta) variant alongside N linked to modified Fc (iV1) (also known as SN17). Sera
from mice immunised with the original DNA vaccine construct, the B.1.351 (Beta) vaccine
construct or the construct expressing the whole S antigen from the original variant were
analysed for reactivity to the original Lineage A SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein as well S1 protein
incorporating the mutations seen in the B.1.351 (Beta) variant by ELISA. Substantial
antibody responses were observed to the protein variants up to 1 in 100,000 dilution (Figure
6B). As noted above, sera raised against the original Lineage A vaccine exhibited a
decrease in reactivity to the B.1.351 (Beta) variant S1 protein compared to the Lineage A S1
protein with the EC50 decreasing from 4664 to 2949. The responses induced by the B.1.351
(Beta) variant vaccine generated higher titres to the B.1.351 (Beta) variant S1 protein (EC50
of 3931) with lower titres against the original Lineage A S1 protein (EC50 of 2086). The
variant vaccines induced higher titres to both the original Lineage A S1 and B.1.351 (Beta)
S1 proteins compared to responses induced by the whole S DNA vaccine (EC50 of 1389 and
644 respectively). The sera were also assessed in a similar antibody binding assay on the
MesoScale Discovery platform that includes the whole spike and RBD proteins from original
Lineage A, B.1.351 (Beta), B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and P.1 (Gamma) variants (Supplementary
Figure 2) where the same pattern of responses was observed. Sera from immunised mice
showed similar reactivity to either the original Lineage A and B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variants or the
B.1.351 (Beta) and P.1 (Gamma) variants, as might be expected based on their RBD
mutations. Interestingly, the sera from mice vaccinated with the original Lineage A vaccine
and the B.1.351 (Beta) variant vaccine showed similar titres of antibodies recognising the
Lineage A N protein and a N protein vari