Member Info for RorkesDrift

Hi Cindy - I'm pretty sure doctors are aware that there are natural rythyms to our immune response. Sorry to hear you are still with it - emerging evidence is that there are longer term sequalae. If it were me I'd speak to my GP and actually seek a test. Many people have remained infected for quite lengthy periods of time. As always I suggest, drink enough fluids, stay active. Not a doctor

:-)

My bets

Weds Beams
Friday LFD with Cytiva + remind working with other. Enter initial RW testing vs PCR

Following Tues Other LFD inc own label for Medusa

Early June Submit Cytiva test to FDA

Sept Multi program therapeutic program with big pharma to develop MAb alternatives.

Not a doctor.

Cindy - circadian ryhtmns are part of being human. Driven by multi factorial feedback loops including hormonal, physical, spiritual (!). Not sure if steps to try and keep us in day mode have much chance but I'm intrigued - not cause I think it makes sense but heck I'm just sitting here watching the gardeners.

On other business its much easier and faster time knock out new affirmers that bind any number of variants to a protein than it is to develop a vaccine. Once approach validated once Avacta can adapt almost in real time. Furthermore, it is possible to apply more than one affimer on one stick. Thus can trust for different strains. Heck a wiseman, great mind forget his name, suggests we can test whether someine has flu or covid.

Thanks - top post

Hang on. Covid19 is disappearing - the government show us that at 5pm every evening. The reason, in my uninformed opinuon, is that we have adopted the lock down measures. Have I missed something?

And one for identifying plant viruses.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31101847

Other applications eg measuring levels of therapeutic MAb

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acssensors.9b01574

Note Sponsors

https://www.biomarkerdevelopmentcenter

LFD is a simple yes or no output. biosensors can give a range of values so disease processes can be identified against a background level. Antibodies are a common element in these and act as binding agents. Market is potentially huge since POC and rapid results change healthcare delivery. This paper looks at using affimers to replace antibodies.

Note other new binding elements exist eg the camel things

Not a doctor

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079930/

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.bivda.org.uk/News-Events/Blog/ArticleID/270/A-short-FAQ-on-COVID-19-Testing

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/videos/how-does-a-lateral-flow-immunoassay-work/

Hi Stan man

Thanks for this. I think someone has posted all the FDA and MHRA stuff earlier this week. Apologies I haven't got more than that.

I find that hard to believe.

Its got to be more than that

Not an expert but. LFD are on the whole yes or not - why they work for pregnancy.

Other devices can measure quantity - thinking mass spec. I read the number of cycles in PCR is an indicator of the original concentration.

Its doable (affirmers in biosensors are already in development - bind and fluoresce - amonuntbof light proportional to amount of binding).

The problem I think is none is measuring viral load in asymptomatic patients and at moment no-one is volunteering to be infected. I think data will come out soon from HCPs who will bevexposed.

https://www.the-scientist.com/lab-tools/using-mimics-to-get-around-antibodies-limitations-64264

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.

Agree but its a trade off. KK point that with so much spike protein present that the fact that Avacta reagents bind to this plus free floating is reassuring. Having read about 14 clinical papers on it today I believe that we won't spot the very beginning of infection but can detect people who are asymptomatic in the next phase. Thatvremains unproven. Truth is papers recognise more work is needed on viral loads during disease inpatients other than those in hospital.

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.