Check out the FAQ,Terms of Service & Disclaimers by clicking the
link. Please register
to be able to post. By viewing this site you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Acknowledge our Disclaimers.
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster.
The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website.
By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
I've just been wondering about this virus - but not because of E627K -
it has so many mutation.
Even more Shanghai/37T
I know what you mean. Something very strange going on here. I'm attempting to find time to look more closely at all the other gene segments and isolates from the area. So far, everything else looks like a concensus virus, however, PA position 224 has a bad nucleoid (y), and this is an important position in determining which variant.
For example, the E627K mutation in the former bird PB2 (substituting a K [lysine] for an E [glutamic acid] at position 627 of PB2) has been put forward as a sign that an avian virus is mutating to one adapted to humans. This virus retains E at 627 but is happily adapted to humans. Several other changes thought to be related to human adaptation are not present, either. The authors conclude the obvious:
Together these data suggest that other previously unrecognized molecular determinants are responsible for the ability of the 2009 A(H1N1) virus to replicate and transmit in humans.
I've done some cursory looking but so far I am not entirely sure what this change might portend. Would this make the virus potentially even more pathogenic? From browsing the site I see some reports that this change does just that in some of the H5N1 isolates. Unfortunately I am still out of my league here. I guess sometime I should buckledown and get a better understanding of genetics in general and flu genetics in particular.
Wotan (pronounced Voton with the ton rhyming with on) - The German Odin, ruler of the Aesir.
I am not a doctor, virologist, biologist, etc. I am a layman with a background in the physical sciences.
I'm wondering whether they maybe grew it extensively in monkey cells or such.
The numbering 71T looks unusual
Cannot tell by looking at the GenBank description. But something is very strange about PB2.
Please be aware also that this virus looks in all respects like the variant "iv" types dominated by the New York sequences, however, NA is a mixture that is predominately found in swine viruses. I have not found any human infection isolates with this mix at positions 106 and 247 of NA.
some other (amino-acid) mutations in the neighborhood.
So, this was a difficult task for the virus ?!
Code:
601 qqmrdvlgtf dtvqiikllp faaappkqsr mqfssltvnv rgsglrilvr gnspvfnynk
E
661 atkrltvlgk dagaltenpn egtsgvesav lrgflilgke nkkygpalsi nelsnlakge
D D D R
Yes, and the interesting thing is that with respect to this last set of changes shown above, an exact match is with:
A/swine/Hong Kong/NS29/2009
So, we have either had some sort of reassortment/recombination event, or this is simply "lab error". If the former, then "Houston, ugh, we have a problem."
Commentary and analysis by FT member Revere:
The Editors of Effect Measure are senior public health scientists and practitioners. Paul Revere was a member of the first local Board of Health in the United States (Boston, 1799). The Editors sign their posts "Revere" to recognize the public service of a professional forerunner better known for other things.
I've done some cursory looking but so far I am not entirely sure what this change might portend. Would this make the virus potentially even more pathogenic? From browsing the site I see some reports that this change does just that in some of the H5N1 isolates. Unfortunately I am still out of my league here. I guess sometime I should buckledown and get a better understanding of genetics in general and flu genetics in particular.
This was discussed in May as a "likely" acquisition
The rapid spread in the human population increases the likelihood of co-infection with H1N1 seasonal flu and the acquisition of key polymorphisms linked to adaptation in human hosts. Two likely acquisitions are NA H274Y and PB2 E627K, which are fixed in human H1N1.
Doesn't this change make Swine flu more transmissible? It is very transmissible already. Does this make a swine flu infection more lethal?
The acquisition of Lysine at 627 of PB2 allows the virus to replicate more readily at cooler temperatures, meaning upper respiratory system, and therefore could make the virus more transmissable. Sneezes and coughs would spread higher viral loads into the air than is likely going at present with the Swine Flu viruses.
Once the virus spreads more readily throughout a population with no immunity to the virus, then one would expect substantially more hospitalizations and deaths, especially for those with underlying health conditions. So, one (transmission) sort of goes with the other (pathogenicity) to some extent for those at risk.
It would also seem that with the development of a more mammalian type of replication gene that higher viral loads could develop quicker in individual patients perhaps leading to some of the faster development of disease we are seeing and be more difficult to fight off. Also the shortened incubation time could increase transmission rates...
Comment