ArticleMicrobial risk analysis2022
Strain wars 5: Gibbs energies of binding of BA.1 through BA.4 variants of SARS-CoV-2.
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 10 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
10 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
- 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
- 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
- Review
- Beyond COVID-19: Do biothermodynamic properties allow predicting the future evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants?Microbial risk analysis · 2022Article
- Why doesn't Ebola virus cause pandemics like SARS-CoV-2?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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reports, for the first time, standard Gibbs energies of binding of the BA.1, BA.2, BA.3, BA.2.13, BA.2.12.1 and BA.4 Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2, to the Human ACE2 receptor. Variants BA.1 through BA.3 exhibit a trend of decreasing standard Gibbs energy of binding and hence increased infectivity. The BA.4 variant exhibits a less negative standard Gibbs energy of binding, but also more efficient evasion of the immune response. Therefore, it was concluded that all the analyzed strains evolve in accordance with expectations of the theory of evolution, albeit using different strategies.
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.