the comments on the research paper are more interesting than the article :)
Like this one:
“... I am not sure why the truncated RBP would be unique in activating the ACE-2. Furthermore, thankfully, VITT was not observed after the booster shots - so there must be something unique going on upon the first exposure to the spike protein. ...The fact that young females are the predominant victims may point at the implication of the antibody response which is known to be more robust in younger women....”
and this one: “This paper makes very sweeping claims about the in vivo/clinical implications without even doing something as basic as a Western blot to prove that the truncated mRNAs are even translated, let alone functional. A Western blot showing secreted truncated forms of S would be the absolute most basic thing that they should have done. A staining experiment showing that these truncated forms stick to ACE2+ cells in vitro would be also be pretty basic. The conclusions in the discussion and abstract are a wild overreach without even this little bit of in vitro functional data.”
This one caught my eye:
Your study analyzed transcriptome of HeLa cells, which are cancerous cells; could we hope that primary cells respond differently from tumor cells ? It could be interesting to analyze primary cells derived from muscles