Dr. Angela Rasmussen

@angie_rasmussen

Virologist at Columbia University. All about the host response to emerging pathogens and systems-level mind-blowing. And pugs. 1X Jeopardy! loser. she/her

Seattle, WA and New York, NY
Vrijeme pridruživanja: listopad 2011.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @angie_rasmussen

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @angie_rasmussen

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 1 sat

    ‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ We need more research funding to understand, treat, and prevent pandemic threats like coronavirus. Call your House and Senate representatives. (202)224-3121

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Made this 📈 of confirmed cases(CC) of in mainland China vs the rest of the world for 5-day interval:29Jan-3Feb (BHL: SIN-SYD-SIN-EWR). China’s cases more than doubled (>17,205), CFR remains consistently at 2%. Global breakdown sans China also given. 1/n👇

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of the mathematical equations examining disease transmission, this is the thread for you!

    Poništi
  4. 2. velj
    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    Do government-enforced lock-downs actually slow down outbreaks? What are the economic costs? Are human rights being violated? I hope these questions are being asked.

    Poništi
  6. 1. velj

    And the last thing anyone anywhere needs is a bunch of people overwhelming providers with demands for tests that are either unproven technology not yet evaluated in patients or some primers that haven’t been adequately validated for clinical use

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 1. velj

    The problem with getting information from an “expert” who evidently knows approximately zero about molecular assays is that these both are presented like tests coming soon to a clinic near you! Nope. Neither test is ready for use as the diagnostic.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 1. velj

    And 100% specificity? The second test was only validated in a tiny cohort (pos n=2, neg n=31), no wonder there weren’t false positives. That’s not even remotely in the realm of statistical power you’d need to validate something for clinical use.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 1. velj

    The second test had “perfect” sensitivity. Perfect is not a quantifiable metric. What does that even mean? That it’s very sensitive? Because the paper measures that by diluting the template, and it’s consistent with what you’d expect for RT-PCR. It’s fine, not “perfect”

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 1. velj

    Not negating that RT-PCR team’s efforts but designing primers and a PCR assay is...not new.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 1. velj

    The first test is a new technology using CRISPR. The second RT-PCR test uses the existing standard method for doing molecular diagnostics. It’s not some groundbreaking new thing

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 1. velj

    Another rant about why it’s dangerous to trust “experts” with no credibility in epi or virology, and obviously a minimal understanding of fundamental molecular biology or ID diagnostics

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 1. velj

    I'm not sure that lit stick of dynamite emojis are the right look for presenting epidemiological data in a non-inflammatory context...

    Poništi
  14. 1. velj

    The bottom line is that these in vitro studies are critical to establish mechanism of entry, but more detailed studies need to be done with authentic nCoV2019 in vitro and in vivo before we can conclude anything about the significance for disease, treatment, or diagnostics

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 1. velj

    However, I wanted to illustrate that critical mechanistic entry work like this is distinct from determining mechanisms of pathogenesis. It is one piece of a larger puzzle. To understand how nCoV2019 causes disease, we need data from animal models & clinical samples from patients.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 1. velj

    To their credit, the authors acknowledge the limitations of using serum from a single patient. They don't make wild assertions about the implications on tropism or what it might mean in terms of pathogenesis. I am impressed that the authors did a well-designed study so rapidly

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 1. velj

    In fact, the most interesting part of the study (to me) is their last experiment, showing that serum from a SARS patient can block entry. This suggests that maybe people with preexisting immunity to SARS might be more resistant or SARS antibodies could be used to treat nCoV2019.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 1. velj

    To be clear the authors aren't suggesting that. They only state that a TMPRSS2 inhibitor approved for human use in Japan should be considered. They also interpret the data well in the context of the study and do not overstate their results.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 1. velj

    If the virus can use another protein as a receptor or another protease for S priming, then this doesn't matter. That doesn't mean it's a dumb idea, but we can't interpret studies done in vitro with tools for studying entry mechanism as promising preclinical data

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 1. velj

    4. ACE2 and TMPRSS2 can function for nCoV2019 cell entry but that doesn't mean they are the only proteins that can. The idea of using ACE inhibitors or TMPRSS2 inhibitors as antivirals is intriguing, but that doesn't mean they are guaranteed to be effective in patients

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·