ArticleMicrobial risk analysis2022
Strain Wars: Competitive interactions between SARS-CoV-2 strains are explained by Gibbs energy of antigen-receptor binding.
Article in Microbial risk analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ghosts of the past: Elemental composition, biosynthesis reactions and thermodynamic properties of Zeta P.2, Eta B.1.525, Theta P.3, Kappa B.1.617.1, Iota B.1.526, Lambda C.37 and Mu B.1.621 variants of SARS-CoV-2.Microbial risk analysis · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 strain wars continues: Chemical and thermodynamic characterization of live matter and biosynthesis of Omicron BN.1, CH.1.1 and XBC variants.Microbial risk analysis · 2023Article
- Article
- XBB.1.5 Kraken cracked: Gibbs energies of binding and biosynthesis of the XBB.1.5 variant of SARS-CoV-2.Microbiological research · 2023Article
- Never ending story? Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 monitored through Gibbs energies of biosynthesis and antigen-receptor binding of Omicron BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB and XBB.1 variants.Microbial risk analysis · 2023Article
- The SARS-CoV-2 Hydra, a tiny monster from the 21st century: Thermodynamics of the BA.5.2 and BF.7 variants.Microbial risk analysis · 2023Article
- Review
- Why doesn't Ebola virus cause pandemics like SARS-CoV-2?Microbial risk analysis · 2022Article
- Beyond COVID-19: Do biothermodynamic properties allow predicting the future evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants?Microbial risk analysis · 2022Article
- Strain wars 5: Gibbs energies of binding of BA.1 through BA.4 variants of SARS-CoV-2.Microbial risk analysis · 2022Article
- Strain wars 3: Differences in infectivity and pathogenicity between Delta and Omicron strains of SARS-CoV-2 can be explained by thermodynamic and kinetic parameters of binding and growth.Microbial risk analysis · 2022Article
- Omicron BA.2.75 Subvariant of SARS-CoV-2 Is Expected to Have the Greatest Infectivity Compared with the Competing BA.2 and BA.5, Due to Most Negative Gibbs Energy of Binding.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2022Article
- Strain wars 2: Binding constants, enthalpies, entropies, Gibbs energies and rates of binding of SARS-CoV-2 variants.Virology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 has mutated several times into new strains, with an increased infectivity. Infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 strains depends on binding affinity of the virus to its host cell receptor. In this paper, we quantified the binding affinity using Gibbs energy of binding and analyzed the competition between SARS-CoV-2 strains as an interference phenomenon. Gibbs energies of binding were calculated for several SARS-SoV-2 strains, including Hu-1 (wild type), B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta), P.1 (Gamma), B.1.36 and B.1.617 (Delta). The least negative Gibbs energy of binding is that of Hu-1 strain, -37.97 kJ/mol. On the other hand, the most negative Gibbs energy of binding is that of the Delta strain, -49.50 kJ/mol. We used the more negative Gibbs energy of binding to explain the increased infectivity of newer SARS-CoV-2 strains compared to the wild type. Gibbs energies of binding was found to decrease chronologically, with appearance of new strains. The ratio of Gibbs energies of binding of mutated strains and wild type was used to define a susceptibility coefficient, which is an indicator of viral interference, where a virus can prevent or partially inhibit infection with another virus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.